Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/14/2013 10:35 am
ExoMars: ESA and Roscosmos set for Mars missions
The European Space Agency and the Russian federal space agency, Roscosmos, have signed a formal agreement to work in partnership on the ExoMars programme towards the launch of two missions in 2016 and 2018.
Establishing whether life ever existed on Mars is one of the outstanding scientific questions of our time and the highest scientific priority of the ExoMars programme.
The partners have agreed a balanced sharing of responsibilities for the different mission elements. ESA will provide the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) and the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM) in 2016, and the carrier and rover in 2018. Roscosmos will be responsible for the 2018 descent module and surface platform, and will provide launchers for both missions. Both partners will supply scientific instruments and will cooperate closely in the scientific exploitation of the missions.
ExoMars will also demonstrate core technologies under development by European industry such as landing, roving, drilling and sample preparation that are an essential part of paving the way for the next big step in the robotic exploration of Mars: a sample-return mission.
The 2016 mission has two major ESA elements: the TGO and the EDM. The TGO will search for evidence of methane and other atmospheric gases that could be signatures of active biological or geological processes. It will also serve as a data relay for the 2018 mission. The EDM will land on Mars to prove key technologies for the 2018 mission.
In 2018, the ExoMars rover, to be provided by ESA, will search the planet’s surface for signs of life, past and present. It will be the first Mars rover able to drill to depths of 2 m, collecting samples that have been shielded from the harsh conditions of the surface, where radiation and oxidants can destroy organic materials.
The rover will be delivered by a Russian descent module that includes a surface platform equipped with additional scientific instruments.
Today, ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain and Head of Roscosmos Vladimir Popovkin met at ESA Headquarters in Paris to sign an agreement that seals ExoMars as a partnership between the two space agencies.
“This is a momentous occasion for the ExoMars programme that will see industry and scientists from Europe and Russia working together on these two exciting missions, which will develop new technologies that will demonstrate the competitiveness of European industry and will be important for preparing strong participation by ESA in future international exploration missions and address the key question of whether life ever arose on Mars,” says Jean-Jacques Dordain.
“It has been a long way, we have performed a large amount of work together. The ExoMars programme is to become the second large project after Soyuz in Kourou. It confirms again that projects of such tremendous scale have to be implemented through international cooperation. The scientific data that we are going to obtain during all the planned missions are important for the worldwide community,” says Vladimir Popovkin
NASA will also deliver important contributions to ExoMars, including the Electra UHF radio package for TGO, and Mars Proximity Link telecom and engineering support to the EDM
The ExoMars Programme is funded by fourteen ESA states (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and Canada) of which Italy is the largest contributor and the UK the second largest. Member states also provide scientific instruments to ExoMars. For the 2016 TGO, these include the infrared and ultraviolet spectrometer package NOMAD (led by Belgium) and the CaSSIS high-resolution colour stereo camera (led by Switzerland). Italy will lead the DREAMS environmental station on the EDM.
The 2018 Rover will comprise PanCam, a wide-angle and high resolution camera system (led by the United Kingdom); CLUPI, a close-up imager (led by Switzerland); WISDOM, a ground-penetrating radar (led by France); Ma_MISS, a miniaturised infrared spectrometer integrated in the subsurface drill (led by Italy); MicrOmega, a visible and infrared imaging spectrometer (led by France); RLS, a Raman spectrometer (led by Spain), and MOMA, a novel organic molecule detector (led by Germany, with substantial contributions from the United States).
Today’s signature between ESA and Roscosmos provides the basis for industry and scientific institutes to begin full cooperation on the missions and to meet the challenging schedule, with the first launch planned in January 2016.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/14/2013 11:35 am
Post by: notsorandom on 03/14/2013 11:41 am
Let's just hope they choose to launch this one on an Ariane-5.It is looking like they will be launching on a Russian rocket for both the 2016 and 2018 missions.
Post by: anik on 03/14/2013 11:54 am
It is looking like they will be launching on a Russian rocket for both the 2016 and 2018 missions
Yes, Proton-M rockets with Briz-M upper stages.
Post by: asmi on 03/14/2013 01:50 pm
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2013 01:51 pm
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/14/2013 01:59 pm
It's not clear what bus will be used for the missions - is this going to be yet another attempt to fly a Phobos derivative to Mars?
Huh? ??? The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter contract has already been given to Thales Alenia Space (in fact the spacecraft should start construction by now), the rover to EADS Astrium and the EDM landing demonstrator by some European company. Are you meaning the 2018 rover's cruise stage?
Now I wonder how the Russian EDL design will look like - airbags I guess? (the rover is slightly bigger than Spirit/Opportunity)
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2013 02:04 pm
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/14/2013 02:07 pm
Is there some PowerPoint showing all these various elements of the two missions?
Not .ppt, but these should give a clear overview of what is what:
http://exploration.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46048 (http://exploration.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46048)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoMars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoMars)
Post by: AnalogMan on 03/14/2013 02:10 pm
This is good news. One titbit though - Chris, since when has Canada become ESA state?
Its one of the states that that make up the membership of ESA (although only an associate member at the moment)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/14/2013 02:34 pm
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/esa-roscosmos-sign-exomars-deal-nasa-refocus/
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2013 02:46 pm
Post by: GClark on 03/14/2013 03:27 pm
It is looking like they will be launching on a Russian rocket for both the 2016 and 2018 missions
Yes, Proton-M rockets with Briz-M upper stages.
Is there confirmation of this? I was under the impression it was to be Proton M-Blok DM 03.
Post by: GClark on 03/14/2013 03:28 pm
Is the Trace Gas Orbiter based on the Mars Express bus?
AIUI, TGO is a new design.
Post by: Dalhousie on 03/14/2013 10:24 pm
Post by: Oli on 03/14/2013 11:47 pm
What's the point of the EDM "landing demonstrator"? They cannot use it for the rover anyway, right?
Post by: Blackstar on 03/15/2013 12:49 am
Post by: Dalhousie on 03/15/2013 01:42 am
Heard some interesting rumors about this marriage. Apparently the Europeans are less than happy with the work they've seen by the Russians. I won't go into any more detail than that, except to say that some people are apparently very worried about the level of expertise in the Russian space program.
Really, after several decades of cooperation on planetary missions they are suddenly saying this now? I would doubt the rumours.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/15/2013 01:51 am
Heard some interesting rumors about this marriage. Apparently the Europeans are less than happy with the work they've seen by the Russians. I won't go into any more detail than that, except to say that some people are apparently very worried about the level of expertise in the Russian space program.
Really, after several decades of cooperation on planetary missions they are suddenly saying this now? I would doubt the rumours.
I, on the other hand, isn't too surprised with this. But I doubt that they are more unhappy than the Russians themselves - when even Popovkin had to say about the problems with expertise in the aerospace industry, you know that the pressure is high within the Russians.
The lucky thing is that the P-G nightmares really did set off the alarm in the organization within Russian aerospace units, and there are signs (not very strong, but certainly robust) that they really want to clear off the problems of the past. I think the smell test will be the planned lunar missions in the next 4 years (2 landers and 1 orbiter planned - I assume that at least 1 of them will get off the ground) - that should give the outsiders a glimpse of the current system management levels for planetary exploration missions before the big Russian hardware for ExoMars flies in 2018.
Post by: Dalhousie on 03/15/2013 06:02 am
Heard some interesting rumors about this marriage. Apparently the Europeans are less than happy with the work they've seen by the Russians. I won't go into any more detail than that, except to say that some people are apparently very worried about the level of expertise in the Russian space program.
Really, after several decades of cooperation on planetary missions they are suddenly saying this now? I would doubt the rumours.
I, on the other hand, isn't too surprised with this. But I doubt that they are more unhappy than the Russians themselves - when even Popovkin had to say about the problems with expertise in the aerospace industry, you know that the pressure is high within the Russians.
The lucky thing is that the P-G nightmares really did set off the alarm in the organization within Russian aerospace units, and there are signs (not very strong, but certainly robust) that they really want to clear off the problems of the past. I think the smell test will be the planned lunar missions in the next 4 years (2 landers and 1 orbiter planned - I assume that at least 1 of them will get off the ground) - that should give the outsiders a glimpse of the current system management levels for planetary exploration missions before the big Russian hardware for ExoMars flies in 2018.
The only "big Russioan hardware" is the 2018 lander. The rest is two launchers (both Venus Express and Mars Express were launched by Russia) so no surprises there and various instruments (again, Russian instruments have flown very successfully on various US and ESA missions).
Certainly there is a lot riding on the 2018 lander, and I am surprised that this has been given to the Russians, especially as the 2016 lander was supposed to be an EDL demonstrator.
Post by: plutogno on 03/15/2013 06:42 am
What's the point of the EDM "landing demonstrator"? They cannot use it for the rover anyway, right?
in Europe we have tried landing on Mars once and failed, so there is a point in demonstrating the capability of landing anything on the planet
Post by: spectre9 on 03/15/2013 08:05 am
Parachutes
Descent propulsion
Propellant tanks
Guidance and Navigation
How much does ExoMars weigh?
How big will the capsule need to be?
Post by: Dalhousie on 03/15/2013 08:49 am
What's the point of the EDM "landing demonstrator"? They cannot use it for the rover anyway, right?
in Europe we have tried landing on Mars once and failed, so there is a point in demonstrating the capability of landing anything on the planet
But the original point was to test techology for the main lander. Given the history this was reasonable. This way they won't be able to do that.
Post by: asmi on 03/15/2013 09:36 am
Heard some interesting rumors about this marriage. Apparently the Europeans are less than happy with the work they've seen by the Russians. I won't go into any more detail than that, except to say that some people are apparently very worried about the level of expertise in the Russian space program.And yet the Russians somehow have managed to achieve (and still are) things in space that Europeans can only dream about... I think whoever said that should check the facts first. One needs to achieve something worthwhile before he/she gets a moral right to critisize.
Post by: anik on 03/15/2013 09:46 am
Is there confirmation of this?
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=19951
"Кроме того, для обеих миссий Роскосмос предоставляет ракеты-носители «Протон», разгонные блоки «Бриз-М» и соответствующие пусковые услуги"
Post by: Blackstar on 03/15/2013 10:36 am
Heard some interesting rumors about this marriage. Apparently the Europeans are less than happy with the work they've seen by the Russians. I won't go into any more detail than that, except to say that some people are apparently very worried about the level of expertise in the Russian space program.
Really, after several decades of cooperation on planetary missions they are suddenly saying this now? I would doubt the rumours.
That's okay. Feel free. I don't have a stake in it one way or another. I heard this from somebody who was equally steamed at how unreliable the Americans are. But keep in mind that in this case they are talking about a degree of cooperation that is unprecedented.
Post by: Blackstar on 03/15/2013 10:40 am
And yet the Russians somehow have managed to achieve (and still are) things in space that Europeans can only dream about... I think whoever said that should check the facts first. One needs to achieve something worthwhile before he/she gets a moral right to critisize.
Er... this isn't about macho posturing or waving a flag. And I'd note that Europe's planetary science program has been a lot more active and successful in the past two decades than the Russian one.
What I heard was that there was a big meeting over technical issues and the Europeans discovered at least one really startling error in the Russians' work, the kind of thing that makes them really nervous that they're working with a team that doesn't just have quality control problems, but may have more fundamental problems than that. Take that for what it's worth.
Post by: Archibald on 03/15/2013 10:48 am
Quote
there was a big meeting over technical issues and the Europeans discovered at least one really startling error in the Russians' work
An obvious question then is: can the European help the Russians correcting those mistakes ? and improving their program as a whole ?
Post by: Oli on 03/15/2013 10:52 am
Quote from: Dalhousie
But the original point was to test techology for the main lander. Given the history this was reasonable. This way they won't be able to do that.
NASA would have been responsible for the rover lander, which is reasonable, given the expertise NASA has. However the last time russia landed on mars was 40 years ago, so for me it just seems to be political decision (too expensive, so lets outsource what we have outsourced before). With a team already working on EDM this seems like a nonsensical and unnecessarily risky decision to me.
Anyway, I'm sure the russians can do it :)
Post by: Blackstar on 03/15/2013 11:01 am
An obvious question then is: can the European help the Russians correcting those mistakes ? and improving their program as a whole ?
They shouldn't have to. The goal is a cooperative program that lands a rover on Mars. The goal isn't to help the Russians improve their planetary program.
But maybe it was just a glitch and everything will be fine.
Post by: GClark on 03/15/2013 11:27 am
Fair enough. Thank you.
Post by: baldusi on 03/15/2013 07:02 pm
I've gotten the impression that the Russian lander was one of the conditions for this cooperation. After all, those Protons are not cheap and why would they let ESA test EDL but not let them try to get one EDL success themselves?Quote from: DalhousieBut the original point was to test techology for the main lander. Given the history this was reasonable. This way they won't be able to do that.
NASA would have been responsible for the rover lander, which is reasonable, given the expertise NASA has. However the last time russia landed on mars was 40 years ago, so for me it just seems to be political decision (too expensive, so lets outsource what we have outsourced before). With a team already working on EDM this seems like a nonsensical and unnecessarily risky decision to me.
Anyway, I'm sure the russians can do it :)
BTW. I think that if the Europeans are going to land on an EDL of the Russians they are going to check every test and calculation at all the meetings. I think they might spend a fair bit extra on system engineering support.
Post by: asmi on 03/16/2013 02:49 am
Post by: Dalhousie on 03/16/2013 05:07 am
And yet the Russians somehow have managed to achieve (and still are) things in space that Europeans can only dream about... I think whoever said that should check the facts first. One needs to achieve something worthwhile before he/she gets a moral right to critisize.
Er... this isn't about macho posturing or waving a flag. And I'd note that Europe's planetary science program has been a lot more active and successful in the past two decades than the Russian one.
What I heard was that there was a big meeting over technical issues and the Europeans discovered at least one really startling error in the Russians' work, the kind of thing that makes them really nervous that they're working with a team that doesn't just have quality control problems, but may have more fundamental problems than that. Take that for what it's worth.
What sort of problem? Is the source cedible?
Post by: bolun on 04/08/2013 02:10 pm
8 April 2013
The structural model of the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module, or EDM, of ESA’s 2016 ExoMars mission has been subjected to a series of intense shaker tests to simulate the rigours of launching into space.
EDM will be launched to Mars together with the Trace Gas Orbiter and will test key landing technologies in preparation for the 2018 ExoMars rover mission and subsequent missions to Mars.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Shaking_ExoMars
Image credit: ESA & A. Le Floc’h
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/08/2013 02:16 pm
Also apparently the candidate landing site for the 2016 lander is right next to Opportunity (well actually only a few dozen km away) on Meridiani Planum, but I can't find the source right now...
Post by: bolun on 04/12/2013 07:41 pm
http://exploration.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=118
Post by: bolun on 05/21/2013 08:37 pm
Rover development status
http://robotics.estec.esa.int/ASTRA/Astra2013/Presentations/Baglioni_0000003.pdf
Post by: bolun on 05/24/2013 07:26 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=calPGDltjTU
http://www.arcaspace.com/en/exomars.htm
Post by: spectre9 on 05/24/2013 11:43 pm
Don't they have a wind tunnel big enough in Europe?
I'm just comparing it to the MSL parachute testing.
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2013 05:33 pm
ExoMars will fly two missions, in 2016 and 2018, in a partnership between ESA and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos. Its main goal is to answer one of the outstanding scientific questions of our time: has life ever existed on Mars?
In addition, ExoMars will develop new European technical capabilities in landing, roving, drilling and preparing samples to pave the way for a future Mars sample-return mission in the 2020s.
The first mission will be launched in 2016 and will include the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) to search for evidence of methane and other atmospheric gases that could be signs of active biological or geological processes.
It will also deliver the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM) to the surface of Mars, to demonstrate key technologies needed for the 2018 mission and future landing missions.
The 2018 mission will land a rover on Mars – the first with the capability of drilling to depths of 2 m to collect samples that have been shielded from the harsh conditions on the surface, where radiation and oxidants can destroy organic materials.
In addition, the 2018 mission carries a Surface Platform with scientific instruments to investigate the martian environment.
The agreement, signed today in the ESA pavilion at the Paris Air & Space Show, marks a major milestone for the mission and for Thales Alenia Space, the industrial prime contractor on ExoMars.
“The award of this contract provides continuity to the work of the industrial team members of Thales Alenia Space on this complex mission, and will ensure that it remains on track for launch in January 2016,” noted Alvaro Giménez, ESA’s Director of Science and Robotic Exploration.
The agreement was signed by Prof Giménez and Vincenzo Giorgio, Vice President Exploration & Science of Thales Alenia Space during a ceremony attended by the Agency’s Director General, Jean-Jacques Dordain. Also attending were Maria Carrozza, the Italian Minister for Education, Universities and Research, Enrico Saggese, President of the Italian space agency, and Jean-Loïc Galle, CEO of Thales Alenia Space.
For the 2016 mission, Thales Alenia Space Italy is building the EDM, which is currently completing structural tests at the company’s laboratories in Turin. TGO’s orbiter is being built at Thales Alenia Space’s site in Cannes, France.
The first mission will be launched in January 2016, arriving at Mars nine months later. The second mission is scheduled for launch in May 2018, arriving at the planet in early 2019.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Space_Science/ExoMars_2016_set_to_complete_construction
Post by: bolun on 06/21/2013 08:38 pm
17 Jun 2013
Destination Mars. The signing of the final contract for the development of the ExoMars program was announced today at the International Aeronautics and Space Exhibition at Le Bourget. The signing ceremony took place at the exhibition area of the European Space Agency, in the presence of the Director General of the Agency, Jean-Jacques Dordain, together with project leader Enrico Saggese, President of the Italian Space Agency, and Jean-Loic Galle, CEO of Thales Alenia Space.
To complete the 2016 mission € 146 million were awarded to Thales Alenia Space, the prime contractor of the program, to which is added a further amount of around 70 million euro to cover a significant part of the 2018 mission. "This is a remarkable achievement for the country - said Saggese - ExoMars will be the first 'made in Italy' robotic exploration program and today’s signing finalizes it".
The Italian Space Agency is the first sponsor of the program that includes two separate missions, the design of which is entirely taken care of by Thales Alenia Space. The company is building the EDM module (Entry and Descent Module) for the launch in 2016, technology demonstrator for the entry and descent to Mars and the orbiter TGO (Trace Gas Orbiter).
For the mission scheduled in 2018, Thales Alenia Space will develop the navigation and guidance system of the Carrier Module and Descent Module and the design of the Rover system, including the creation of the Analytical Laboratory, with the drilling and sample collection system from the Martian surface as well as its integration with the Rover.
ExoMars will be achieved through international cooperation of the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos, as an equal partner in the project that will help with equipment and scientific experiments, but will also develop the Descent Module of the 2018 Mission, and provide launch services for both missions with the use of the Proton carrier.
"The consistency and tenacity of the European and Italian Space Agencies - stressed Elisio Giacomo Prette, President and CEO of Thales Alenia Space Italy – has given assurance and continuity to the work of the industrial components and allowed the continuation of all activities intended to minimize the development risks inherent in such a challenging and complex mission". He added - "In particular, we also wish to thank and welcome the Russian Space Agency as a new partner in this exciting adventure".
The 2016 mission is currently in an advanced stage of development that foresees the implementation of the Critical Design Review of the system within the year, while the EDM module (Entry Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module) is completing structural testing at the Thales Alenia Space laboratories in Turin and is expected to start the integration phase of the flight model of the entire spacecraft by the beginning of next year at the latest. The launch is planned for January 2016.
The 2018 mission also undertakes the development of the rover system, which includes the Rover vehicle and the Automatic Laboratory Drawer (ALD), with the objective to carry out a Preliminary Design Review of the entire mission by the spring of 2014 and thereby give the go-ahead to the final phase of construction in the second half of 2014. The launch of this second mission is planned for May 2018.
http://www.asi.it/en/news/exomars_italy_on_the_conquest_of_the_red_planet
Post by: bolun on 06/24/2013 06:46 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23010103
Post by: bolun on 10/07/2013 09:00 pm
An early ground prototype of ESA’s six-wheeled ExoMars rover vehicle, nicknamed ‘Bridget’, was used for the SAFER (Sample Acquisition Field Experiment with a Rover) field test in Chile’s Atacama desert during October 2013. This photo was taken during a preliminary run in Upwood Quarry near Abingdon in Oxfordshire, UK, in July 2013.
http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2013/10/SAFER_field_test_rover
More about "Bridget" http://www.bridgetrover.net/
Image credit: ESA-Michel van Winnendael
Post by: Blackstar on 10/07/2013 11:43 pm
Post by: bolun on 10/08/2013 09:31 am
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering/Desert_trial_for_ESA_Mars_rover
To follow SAFER’s daily progress, visit the team blog at http://safertrial.wordpress.com
Post by: bolun on 10/09/2013 01:21 pm
First ARCA flight in the ExoMars Program completed successfully
ARCA has successfully completed the validation test flight in the ExoMars Program High Altitude Drop Test (HADT), carried out in cooperation with the European Space Agency.
The launch took place from the Black Sea coast and comprised three pressurized containers containing the avionics equipment that will be necessary to test the ExoMars spacecraft parachute during the incoming future flights that will be performed by ARCA.
The objectives were flight testing the avionics and communication systems, demonstrating the containers sealing after sea landing and the capability to identify and recover the equipment from the sea surface.
http://www.arcaspace.com/en/home.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ezSxQMJq0
Post by: bolun on 10/16/2013 07:41 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering/ESA_s_test_rover_begins_exploring_Atacama_Desert
ESA rover completes exploring Mars-like desert
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering/ESA_rover_completes_exploring_Mars-like_desert
Image credit: Astrium - E Allouis
Post by: bolun on 11/02/2013 04:00 pm
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/53129-call-for-membership-of-exomars-2018-landing-site-selection-working-group/
Post by: AJA on 11/03/2013 03:43 pm
The objectives were flight testing the avionics and communication systems, demonstrating the containers sealing after sea landing and the capability to identify and recover the equipment from the sea surface.
I know there's water on Mars.. but this is a bit too far, no? :D
But seriously, why? They intend to recover the payload if there's a launch vehicle failure that dumps it at sea? I'm shooting down my own hypothesis, because.. stress of impact!
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/03/2013 04:32 pm
Post by: AJA on 11/03/2013 05:27 pm
Is that a serious question? Obviously they needed to validate the technology and procedures they will use to conduct the future drops where actual data collection will take place...this was just the first test drop.Mea culpa. I didn't realise the were testing the testing equipment. I thought avionics referred to QM/FM.
Post by: baldusi on 11/03/2013 06:17 pm
Direct sample entry at TEI speeds. Might very well fall in the ocean.The objectives were flight testing the avionics and communication systems, demonstrating the containers sealing after sea landing and the capability to identify and recover the equipment from the sea surface.
I know there's water on Mars.. but this is a bit too far, no? :D
But seriously, why? They intend to recover the payload if there's a launch vehicle failure that dumps it at sea? I'm shooting down my own hypothesis, because.. stress of impact!
Post by: bolun on 11/03/2013 07:52 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24466042
Post by: bolun on 11/08/2013 08:44 pm
8 November 2013
The entry, descent and landing demonstrator module that will fly on the 2016 ExoMars mission has been named ‘Schiaparelli’ in honour of the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, who famously mapped the Red Planet’s surface features in the 19th century.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars_lander_module_named_Schiaparelli
Post by: savuporo on 12/31/2013 09:21 pm
http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/icra/2013/workshops/PlanetaryRovers/04-Baglioni,Joudrier/baglioni,joudrier_talk.pdf
On slide 6 they detail their ground segment including tracking. There are some question marks around DSN usage. I started thinking - Estrack is cooperating with China on Chang'e tracking now, i wonder if it's too late in ExoMars for the reverse to happen ? Chinese and european tracking networks would complement (http://www.ibtimes.com/china-lands-moon-admits-it-needs-monitoring-stations-abroad-begin-deep-space-exploration-1510212) eachother well, no ?
( the link comes from IRCA 2013 (http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/icra/2013/workshops/PlanetaryRovers/) planetary rovers workshop page )
Bizarrely, Chinese DSN has a facebook page https://www.facebook.com/DeepSpaceChina , and so does CLEP
Post by: gospacex on 12/31/2013 09:52 pm
Is it an emotional desire to be "independent" from UK/US?
Post by: hop on 12/31/2013 10:16 pm
I never understood French leanings towards cooperating with Russians, as opposed with some western countries.The reason ExoMars changed from a primarily ESA/NASA mission to an ESA/Russian one is well documented and has nothing to do with French "emotions"
Post by: baldusi on 01/01/2014 04:04 am
Chinese and european tracking networks would complement (http://www.ibtimes.com/china-lands-moon-admits-it-needs-monitoring-stations-abroad-begin-deep-space-exploration-1510212) eachother well, no ?It depends where. The ESA Malargüe station is just 400km south of where the next Chinese station will be in San Juan (an Argentinian province just north of Mendoza).
Post by: woods170 on 01/01/2014 05:42 pm
and everything with NASA lacking the budget needed and thus pulling out almost completely (except for some science instrumentation)I never understood French leanings towards cooperating with Russians, as opposed with some western countries.The reason ExoMars changed from a primarily ESA/NASA mission to an ESA/Russian one is well documented and has nothing to do with French "emotions"
Post by: Dalhousie on 01/02/2014 04:08 am
Post by: bolun on 02/05/2014 01:55 pm
3 February 2014
The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter module consisting of the spacecraft structure, thermal control and propulsion systems was handed over by OHB System to Thales Alenia Space France at a ceremony held in Bremen, Germany, today.
The delivery marks an important step in the ExoMars programme, a joint endeavour between ESA and Russia’s Roscosmos space agency.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars_orbiter_core_module_completed
Post by: belegor on 02/05/2014 02:32 pm
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/02041241-exomars-baby-pictures.html (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/02041241-exomars-baby-pictures.html)
Post by: bolun on 02/06/2014 07:19 pm
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/02/ExoMars_Trace_Gas_Orbiter
Image credit: ESA/OHB
Post by: Star One on 02/06/2014 07:38 pm
Post by: veblen on 02/06/2014 07:41 pm
I wouldn't call closer cooperation wirh Russia a loss.
Cheeky, that is not what Blackstar said.
Post by: bolun on 02/11/2014 08:27 pm
Astrium Limited is a core team member for the ExoMars mission, and as such has contracted Neptec Design Group (Neptec) to develop and deliver the ExoMars Rover Vehicle Navigation and Localization Cameras.
http://www.neptec.com/technology/ExoMars-Navigation-Camera.php
Post by: Blackstar on 03/03/2014 04:44 pm
Post by: bolun on 03/27/2014 08:04 am
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26743089
Post by: Star One on 03/27/2014 12:06 pm
Europe begins Mars site selection
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26743089
That's a very good article from Jonathan Amos.
Post by: Star One on 03/28/2014 04:05 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26764950
Post by: bolun on 04/05/2014 06:17 pm
Scientists favour four ExoMars landing sites
Quote
Some 60 scientists and engineers came together 26–28 March for the first ExoMars 2018 Landing Site Selection Workshop, held at ESA's European Space Astronomy Centre near Madrid. Their task was to begin the process of drawing up a shortlist of the most suitable landing locations for ESA's first Mars rover.
Quote
The workshop attendees favoured four candidate sites – all of which are located relatively near the equator - that were considered to be the most likely to achieve the mission's objectives. They are: Mawrth Vallis (for which 2, very similar, proposals were received), Oxia Planum, Hypanis Vallis and Oxia Palus.
Quote
Over the next few months, members of the ExoMars Landing Site Selection Working Group (LSSWG) will seek to improve their understanding of the scientific and engineering implications associated with each of these four locations, while also devoting some attention to the three remaining sites - Coogoon Valles, Simud Vallis and Southern Isidis.
The LSSWG will then recommend a final shortlist of up to four candidate sites in June 2014, prior to a more detailed analysis. The aim is to complete the certification of at least one landing site for the ExoMars rover by the second half of 2016. The final decision on the landing site will be taken sometime in 2017.
Credits: ESA-Roscosmos/LSSWG/E. Hauber & ESA-Roscosmos/LSSWG/D. Loizeau
Post by: redliox on 04/05/2014 10:02 pm
Post by: asmi on 06/17/2014 02:54 am
A ton of very interesting info there, still reading it, here is some:
technical requirements for the lander:
mass of the rover: 350 kg
mass of the landing platform: 50 kg
launch: may 2018 (backup window - august 2020)
arrival: january 2019 (april 2021 for backup window)
landing sites: Beagle-2 (10.6N 90E) or Elysium Planitia (4.323N 135.663E) or Mawrth Vallis (24.5N 20W) - it's not chosen yet, but will be one of these
landing ellipsis: 50x7.5 km, altitude -2 km
landing acceleration: axial <=18g, lateral <= 8g
landing trajectory: ballistic
atmosphere entry velocity: 5791.9 (Beagle-2)/5796.3 (Elysium Planitia)/5816.9 (Mawrth Vallis) m/s
landing type: parachute-assisted with terminal powered phase
entry angle: -(12.00±0.21)°
mission duration - 0.5 year for the rover and 2 years for the landing platform.
TGO mission data (Exomars-2016):
launch - january 2016
arrival: october 2016
TGO target orbit: 400 km @74° (will reach that orbit after multiple aerobraking passes in november 2017)
EDM: direct entry from hyperbolic trajectory during dust storm season, landing site: Meridiani Planum (1.82S 6.15W), landing ellipsis: 100x15 km, max surface altitude: -1km
mission duration: TGO - till the end of 2022, EDM - few days.
Interesting fact - the rover will be launched upside down.
There are over 100 pages of the missions' details, so expect more to come from me, or somebody else - it's too large to translate in full.
Post by: bolun on 07/05/2014 06:52 pm
NASA Radio Delivered for Europe's 2016 Mars Orbiter
Quote
The first of two NASA Electra radios that will fly aboard the European Space Agency's next mission to Mars has been delivered for installation onto the ESA ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO).
Quote
Twin Electra ultra-high frequency (UHF) radios on the TGO will provide communication links with robots on the Martian surface -- rovers or landers. Relay of information from Mars-surface craft to Mars orbiters, then from Mars orbit to Earth, enables receiving much more data from the surface missions than would otherwise be possible.
Post by: bolun on 07/11/2014 08:48 pm
http://airbusdefenceandspace.com/airbus-defence-and-space-completes-production-of-heat-shields-for-2016-exomars-mission/
Quote
The Schiaparelli’s front shield, which has a diameter of 2.4metres and weighs 80 kilogrammes, is made up of a carbon sandwich structure covered with 90 Norcoat Liege insulating tiles. During the atmospheric entry phase, the material is built to withstand temperatures of up to 1,850°C before being jettisoned. The rear shield, which contains the parachute, deployed during the descent, weighs a mere 20 kilogrammes and is composed of 93 tiles of 12 different types, affixed to the carbon structure. The probe’s equipment is integrated into the front shield, then covered with the rear shield before final assembly in Baikonur in preparation for launch.
Image credit: Airbus Defence and Space
Post by: tolis on 08/06/2014 10:33 am
Russian Space Web forum:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/exomars2018_2014.html
From reading this, I get the impression that the decision to
share the landing system development work between Europe and Russia
turned out to be not a very good one (but was there an alternative?),
and the programme is still short of money. No doubt a shift to 2020
will add further to the overall project cost.
Tolis.
Post by: baldusi on 08/06/2014 12:43 pm
Besides, the rumors I heard was that the Europeans were less than happy with the technical preparation of some of the Russian counterparts. P,ease remember that no current Russian engineer has successfully launch anything beyond an Earth centric orbit. Apparently, nothing is left of the glorious Soviet times.
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2014 05:37 pm
http://www.universetoday.com/114302/exomars-hunting-where-should-the-european-rover-land/
Post by: Blackstar on 09/03/2014 05:43 pm
Besides, the rumors I heard was that the Europeans were less than happy with the technical preparation of some of the Russian counterparts. P,ease remember that no current Russian engineer has successfully launch anything beyond an Earth centric orbit. Apparently, nothing is left of the glorious Soviet times.
You might have heard that from me, rumor-mongering here. I got that very second-hand. Or did you hear it independently?
Anyway, the overall political relationship between Russia and Europe is currently deteriorating (see today's announcement by France over the helicopter ship). I keep wondering if/when this mission may suffer.
Post by: Dalhousie on 09/06/2014 03:09 am
Post by: plutogno on 09/28/2014 08:30 am
http://aviationweek.com/space/flat-space-budgets-make-cooperation-tricky
Post by: Blackstar on 09/29/2014 10:15 pm
the latest issue of AWST has quite a few updates on ExoMars
http://aviationweek.com/space/flat-space-budgets-make-cooperation-tricky
From the article:
"For scientists like Fisk, who have taught generations of Chinese students at U.S. universities, a pivot to China in space science would make more sense than the current restrictions, particularly as NASA takes on new and expensive human-spaceflight projects with a flat future-budget profile.
“You have a space program in the case of the Chinese which has money,” he says. “It’s kind of like the height of the Apollo program. They can’t do things technically as well as we can, but they certainly have the resources to do so, and the Europeans are collaborating with them, the Russians are collaborating with them, and the Americans aren’t allowed to. That works to our detriment.” "
I'd add a caveat to that, because the Chinese are not as flush with cash in their space program as we might hope. They have funding restrictions as well.
Post by: baldusi on 09/29/2014 10:36 pm
Post by: Blackstar on 09/30/2014 03:00 am
But I'd just caution that the money is not unlimited. I am aware of some Chinese space scientists who have had their travel budgets cut back. The Chinese economy has cooled a bit and their government has cut some budgets, so they're not rolling in money.
Post by: bolun on 10/02/2014 01:29 pm
Four candidate landing sites for ExoMars 2018
Quote
Mawrth Vallis, Oxia Planum, Hypanis Vallis and Aram Dorsum.
Full report: http://exploration.esa.int/mars/54707-recommendation-for-the-narrowing-of-exomars-2018-landing-sitesrecommendation-for-the-narrowing-of-exomars-2018-landing-sites/
Image credit: ESA/Roscosmos/LSSWG
Post by: bolun on 10/02/2014 01:36 pm
Mawrth Vallis is one of four candidate landing sites under consideration for the ExoMars 2018 mission. It is one of the oldest outflow channels on Mars, at least 3.8 billion years old. It hosts large exposures of finely layered clay-rich rocks, indicating that water once played a role here.
The image combines HRSC images from ESA Mars Express with MOLA topography data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor. The landing ellipses under evaluation for this site selection are indicated, and cover an area of 170 x 19 km. The orientation of the landing ellipse depends on when the launch takes place within a given launch window – the sites have to be compliant with launch opportunities in both 2018 and 2020, as indicated.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Mawrth_Vallis
Image credit: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin & NASA MGS MOLA Science Team
Post by: bolun on 10/02/2014 01:39 pm
Oxia Planum is one of four candidate landing sites under consideration for the ExoMars 2018 mission. It contains one of the largest exposures of ancient – approximately 3.8 billion years old – clay-rich rocks on the planet. The finely layered formations record a variety of deposition and wetting environments believed to be similar to that of Mawrth Vallis.
The image combines HRSC images from ESA Mars Express with MOLA topography data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor. The landing ellipses under evaluation for site selection are indicated, and cover an area of 104 x 19 km. The orientation of the landing ellipse depends on when the launch takes place within a given launch window – the sites have to be compliant with launch opportunities in both 2018 and 2020, as indicated.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Oxia_Planum
Image credit: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin & NASA MGS MOLA Science Team
Post by: bolun on 10/02/2014 01:42 pm
Hypanis Vallis is one of four candidate landing sites under consideration for the ExoMars 2018 mission. It lies on an exhumed fluvial fan, thought to be the remnant of an ancient river delta at the end of a major valley network. Distinct layers of fine-grained sedimentary rocks provide access to material deposited about 3.45 billion years ago.
The image combines HRSC images from ESA Mars Express with MOLA topography data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor. The landing ellipses under evaluation for site selection are indicated, and cover an area of 104 x 19 km. The orientation of the landing ellipse depends on when the launch takes place within a given launch window – the sites have to be compliant with launch opportunities in both 2018 and 2020, as indicated.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Hypanis_Vallis
Image credit: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin & NASA MGS MOLA Science Team
Post by: bolun on 10/02/2014 01:45 pm
Aram Dorsum is one of four candidate landing sites under consideration for the ExoMars 2018 mission. The Aram Dorsum site receives its name from the Aram Dorsum channel, curving from northeast to west across the landing location. The sedimentary rocks around the channel are interpreted to be alluvial sediments deposited much like those around Earth’s River Nile.
The image combines HRSC images from ESA Mars Express with MOLA topography data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor. The landing ellipses under evaluation for site selection are indicated, and cover an area of 104 x 19 km. The orientation of the landing ellipse depends on when the launch takes place within a given launch window – the sites have to be compliant with launch opportunities in both 2018 and 2020, as indicated.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Aram_Dorsum
Image credit: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin & NASA MGS MOLA Science Team
Post by: Star One on 10/02/2014 02:13 pm
Quote
TORONTO — The prime contractor for Europe’s two-launch ExoMars mission on Oct. 1 said it is on schedule for both mission segments — one to launch in 2016, the other in 2018 — but that it needs a commitment from European governments in December to complete the agreed-to funding package.
Thales Alenia Space said that while it has sufficient funds to continue working on both missions into 2015, the 2018 launch, featuring a European Mars rover vehicle, will run out of cash sometime next spring without a fresh funding commitment.
The missing funds, totaling about 185 million euros ($240 million), have long been a sore point among European Space Agency governments, several of which have chafed as ExoMars grew from a technology demonstration mission to a full-scale science and exploration program with an estimated cost of 1.2 billion euros.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42061exomars-funding-commitment-needed-in-december-thales-alenia-says
Post by: Star One on 10/06/2014 04:34 pm
ExoMars is a joint two-mission endeavour between ESA and Russia's Roscosmos space agency. The Trace Gas Orbiter and an entry, descent and landing demonstrator module, Schiaparelli, will be launched in January 2016, arriving at Mars nine months later. The Rover and Surface Platform will depart in May 2018, with touchdown on Mars in January 2019.
The search for a suitable landing site for the second mission began in December 2013, when the science community was asked to propose candidates.
The eight proposals were considered during a workshop held by the Landing Site Selection Working Group in April. By the end of the workshop, there were four clear front-runners.
Following additional review by an ESA-appointed panel, the four sites have now been formally recommended for further detailed analysis.
The sites – Mawrth Vallis, Oxia Planum, Hypanis Vallis and Aram Dorsum – are all located relatively close to the equator.
"The present-day surface of Mars is a hostile place for living organisms, but primitive life may have gained a foothold when the climate was warmer and wetter, between 3.5 billion and 4 billion years ago," says Jorge Vago, ESA's ExoMars project scientist.
"Therefore, our landing site should be in an area with ancient rocks where liquid water was once abundant. Our initial assessment clearly identified four landing sites that are best suited to the mission's scientific goals."
The area around Mawrth Vallis and nearby Oxia Planum contains one of the largest exposures of rocks on Mars that are older than 3.8 billion years and clay-rich, indicating that water once played a role here. Mawrth Vallis lies on the boundary between the highlands and lowlands and is one of the oldest outflow channels on Mars.
The exposed rocks at both Mawrth Vallis and Oxia Planum have varied compositions, indicating a variety of deposition and wetting environments. In addition, the material of interest has been exposed by erosion only within the last few hundred million years, meaning the rocks are still well preserved against damage from the planet's harsh radiation and oxidation environment.
By contrast, Hypanis Vallis lies on an exhumed fluvial fan, thought to be the remnant of an ancient river delta at the end of a major valley network. Distinct layers of fine-grained sedimentary rocks provide access to material deposited about 3.45 billion years ago.
Finally, the Aram Dorsum site receives its name from the eponymous channel, curving from northeast to west across the location. The sedimentary rocks around the channel are thought to be alluvial sediments deposited much like those around Earth's River Nile.
This region experienced both sustained water activity followed by burial, providing protection from radiation and oxidation for most of Mars' geological history, also making this a site with strong potential for finding preserved biosignatures.
"While all four sites are clearly interesting scientifically, they must also allow for the operational and engineering requirements for safe landing and roving on the surface," adds Jorge.
"Technical constraints are satisfied to different degrees in each of these locations and, although our preliminary evaluation indicates that Oxia Planum has fewer problems compared to the other sites, verification is still on going."
The next stage of analysis will include simulations to predict the probability of landing success based on the entry profile, atmospheric and terrain properties at each of the candidate sites.
The aim is to complete the certification of at least one site by the second half of 2016, with a final decision on the landing site for the ExoMars 2018 rover to be taken sometime in 2017.
NOTES FOR EDITORS
Download the full report: Recommendation for the narrowing of ExoMars 2018 landing sites
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT
Markus Bauer
ESA Science and Robotic Exploration Communication Officer
Tel: +31 71 565 6799
Mob: +31 61 594 3 954
Email: [email protected]
Jorge Vago
ESA ExoMars 2018 project scientist
Scientific Support Office
Directorate of Science and Robotic Exploration
Email: [email protected]
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/54708-four-candidate-landing-sites-for-exomars-2018/
Post by: bolun on 10/28/2014 10:33 am
Technicians in ESA’s ultra-clean microbiology laboratory, part of ESTEC's Life, Physical Sciences and Microgravity Laboratory, follow strict Planetary Protection procedures as they prepare the COMARS+ temperature sensor to be put into storage until it can be integrated into the heat shield of ExoMars 2016's Schiaparelli lander.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/10/Examining_ExoMars_2016_heat_shield_sensor
Article: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering/Packing_for_Mars
Credit: ESA
Post by: Star One on 12/03/2014 11:55 am
Quote
The third big issue for the Luxembourg gathering concerned the ExoMars rover, which is due to be sent to the Red Planet in 2018 to search for signs of past or present life.
It is a project with a troubled history that has come within a breath of being cancelled on more than one occasion.
Its persistent woe has been a shortfall in the money needed to carry the venture through to completion. This gap is on the order of 200 million euros. Ministers could only promise 140 million euros in Luxembourg, even after the UK and Italy, the "champions of ExoMars", upped their participation. But Mr Dordain told reporters the sum was enough for now to keep the mission on track.
"It means I can sign industrial contracts next year," he explained.
Other programmes to be approved at the meeting included the next phase of Sentinel-6, a future satellite for the EU to measure the shape of the oceans; and "AnySat", which is a concept for small, adaptable telecommunications spacecraft.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30251863
Post by: Star One on 12/15/2014 12:02 pm
http://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2014/dec/15/searching-for-life-on-mars-esa-narrows-choice-of-exomars-landing-sites
Post by: bolun on 01/08/2015 11:15 am
The 1.194 m-diameter 3.5-m high composite cylinder at the centre of this structure is the backbone of ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter core module, due for launch in 2016.
It has the task of transmitting the forces and stresses of launch throughout the rest of the spacecraft. It also houses the propellant and oxidiser tanks for the Orbiter thrusters – attachment points for the tanks are visible as lines of gold-coloured circles around the central tube.
The spacecraft is seen here during integration of its electrical subsystems in the cavernous Thales Alenia Space cleanroom in Cannes, France, last November.
The cylinder extends to the top of the core module, where the Schiaparelli entry, descent and landing demonstrator module will be held during the flight to Mars, before separating for landing.
The Orbiter itself will remain in Mars orbit to image surface features and study the composition of the atmosphere, including sniffing out trace gases such as methane, recently detected on the surface of Mars by NASA’s Curiosity rover.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/01/ExoMars_Trace_Gas_Orbiter
Image credit: ESA-–Anneke Le Floc'h
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/08/2015 03:52 pm
Post by: kato on 01/08/2015 04:36 pm
2016 - Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) and Schiaparelli (EDM) lander
2018 - ExoMars Rover with surface platform*
EDM will separate from TGO well before orbit insertion and coast towards Mars on its own for three days.
EDM is mostly an entry demonstration payload, and will only operate a short time on the surface (planned: up to 8 sol). While it is mostly portrayed as just a piggyback mission, the lander is roughly the same size as more recent NASA landers at 600 kg incl. heatshield, parachutes and fuel.
TGO serves as communication orbiter for EDM, the Rover and potential missions beyond that** till ca 2022.
Roscosmos will provide:
- the launchers (two Protons)
- two of four instruments for TGO
- two of nine instruments for the rover
- 80% of the 2018 lander - pretty much everything except guidance and navigation equipment
- the instrument suite on the 2018 lander, probably along the lines of a meteorological station
ESA will provide:
- TGO plus two instruments on it
- EDM
- the rover plus seven instruments and the drill on it
- guidance and navigation package for the 2018 lander
NASA still has some minor involvement in the communications suite of TGO.
*- The surface platform is the lander that the rover deploys from. It is intended to be a separately functioning lander with its own science mission, and from what little is really known about the plans will be a 1800-kg monster with a Russian-built RTG.
**- The "potential missions beyond that" are under development as the MREP-2 package (the above three/four payloads are the MREP(-1) package).
Post by: bolun on 03/18/2015 12:59 pm
ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter module is seen here during tests in the anechoic test chamber of Thales Alenia Space, in Cannes, France, on 5 March 2015.
The Orbiter itself will remain in Mars orbit to image surface features and study the composition of the atmosphere.
The first mission of the ExoMars programme, scheduled to arrive at Mars in 2016, consists of a Trace Gas Orbiter plus an Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM). The main objectives of this mission are to search for evidence of methane and other trace atmospheric gases that could be signatures of active biological or geological processes and to test key technologies in preparation for ESA's contribution to subsequent missions to Mars.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/03/ExoMars_Trace_Gas_Orbiter_during_tests8
Image credit: ESA–S. Corvaja, 2015
Post by: bolun on 04/02/2015 05:18 pm
31 March 2015
The European Space Agency (ESA) and the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IKI) invite the scientific community to submit proposals for instrument(s) and instrument contributions in the ExoMars 2018 Surface Platform. This Announcement of Opportunity is open to scientists in ESA Member States, Canada, and Russia.
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/55672-ao-for-european-payload-elements-on-the-surface-platform-of-the-exomars-2018-mission/
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/05/2015 09:45 pm
I've read up-thread and in ESA material that the Electra communications package is aboard TGO. And, that it will be used to communicate with Schiaparelli.
Will the NASA orbiters also carrying Electra (Mars Odyssey, MRO, and MAVEN) assist in bearing the communication load with Schiaparelli?
Once Schiaparelli's mission is completed, will TGO's Electra be used to communicate with Opportunity, Curiosity, InSight, and the Mars 2020 Rover?
Will the 2018 Exomars Rover also communicate with TGO via Electra? I assumed so, but hadn't read this explicitly stated.
Thank you,
Zubenelgenubi
Post by: Danderman on 04/05/2015 11:34 pm
Post by: vjkane on 04/06/2015 12:02 am
AFAIK, anything using Elektra can communicate with any other spacecraft using Elektra, unless someone does something really stupid such as instituting proprietary comm protocols.I think that the question was what orbital resources were planned for relay rather than which could. Mars Odyssey is still doing the bulk (all?) of the current relay for Opportunity and Curiousity, and NASA hopes to never have to use MAVEN.
I expect that the 2018 landed elements will use the 2016 orbiter. It will have a circular orbit useful for frequent communication and ESA controls the allocation of its communications resources. I believe that NASA's orbiters will be a back up.
Post by: redliox on 04/06/2015 09:39 am
Post by: plutogno on 04/06/2015 09:49 am
Post by: redliox on 04/06/2015 10:42 am
seismic instruments on a lander are a bad idea, as proved by Viking recording only lander vibrations. this is why on Insight the seismometer is designed to be deployed on the surface. I really doubt that it is worth flying one on EM without a deployment system.
Depends on where it's mounted. Viking's seismometer was high on the deck of all places, not even on a leg. The Russian lander appears to be flatter than Viking was, but I do agree placing it properly is key if its to come at all. Still, considering CNES is contributing one to InSight already I would be surprised if they'd offer a duplicate for the Russian lander. Of course this is conjecture - have to wait and see what's selected.
Post by: Blackstar on 04/06/2015 07:23 pm
Post by: redliox on 04/06/2015 08:14 pm
My guess is that it might depend upon the quality of the data that they are willing to accept. The InSight one is going for really good seismic data. But perhaps one located on a lander relatively close to the ground might still provide some useful data, at least for more powerful seismic events.
Exactly! They might not go so far as to put a wind-cover on it like for InSight but if it's near the ground if not directly on it the device will work all the same.
Post by: hop on 04/06/2015 09:37 pm
Mars Odyssey is still doing the bulk (all?) of the current relay for Opportunity and CuriousityI'm pretty sure MRO is the primary relay for Curiosity.
Quote
and NASA hopes to never have to use MAVEN.AFAIK the plan is to have MAVEN available as a relay after the primary science mission (and possibly some extensions) is completed. The MAVEN FAQ says http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/maven/about/faqs/
Quote
The primary science mission for MAVEN is designed to be one Earth-year. MAVEN carries enough fuel to extend its science mission for an additional 29 months and then another six years in a higher orbit, chosen to conserve fuel.By the time the 2018 ExoMars arrives, it would have transitioned to the higher orbit.
Quote
I expect that the 2018 landed elements will use the 2016 orbiter. It will have a circular orbit useful for frequent communication and ESA controls the allocation of its communications resources. I believe that NASA's orbiters will be a back up.That would be my guess too. It's worth noting Mars Express has been backup for the NASA surface missions. If it's still alive in 2018 I suppose it could serve too, but the orbit isn't very favorable.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/06/2015 09:59 pm
and NASA hopes to never have to use MAVEN.AFAIK the plan is to have MAVEN available as a relay after the primary science mission (and possibly some extensions) is completed. The MAVEN FAQ says http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/maven/about/faqs/QuoteThe primary science mission for MAVEN is designed to be one Earth-year. MAVEN carries enough fuel to extend its science mission for an additional 29 months and then another six years in a higher orbit, chosen to conserve fuel.By the time the 2018 ExoMars arrives, it would have transitioned to the higher orbit.
MAVEN's instruments only work once "activated", and only so long as in the elliptical orbit designed for them. One hopes for a long and scientifically productive period before becoming a relay. Part of MAVEN's funding imperative was as relay "backup" though. With enough propellant margin to cover this.
The nature of that science product depends on things like solar flares and other "hard to schedule enough" events, where its hard to say how much is enough. My guess is while the mission has a year, it'll likely need 2-4 for the science it's capable to deliver.
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/09/2015 11:37 pm
Interesting timing--given my questions here in this thread, this mission may come back into play:
(discussion thread)
Mars Telecom Orbiter reduxe
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37236.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37236.0)
Zubenelgenubi
Post by: bolun on 04/25/2015 03:27 pm
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/55753-exomars-2016-test-campaign-journal-03-schiaparelli-meets-the-trace-gas-orbiter/
ExoMars 2016 Test Campaign Journal: #04 - Schiaparelli and Trace Gas Orbiter united for the first time
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/55828-exomars-2016-test-campaign-journal-04-schiaparelli-and-trace-gas-orbiter-united-for-the-first-time/
Post by: bolun on 05/01/2015 09:25 am
ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) and Schiaparelli, also known as the ExoMars Entry, descent and landing Demonstrator Module are seen here during vibration testing at Thales Alenia Space, in Cannes, France, on 23 April 2015.
The first mission of the ExoMars programme, scheduled to arrive at Mars in 2016, consists of a Trace Gas Orbiter plus an Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM). The main objectives of this mission are to search for evidence of methane and other trace atmospheric gases that could be signatures of active biological or geological processes and to test key technologies in preparation for ESA's contribution to subsequent missions to Mars.
The Orbiter itself will remain in Mars orbit to image surface features and study the composition of the atmosphere.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/04/ExoMars_TGO_and_EDM_modules_during_vibration_testing9
Credit: ESA–S. Corvaja, 2015
Post by: Kaputnik on 05/16/2015 01:11 pm
Post by: _INTER_ on 05/16/2015 01:23 pm
Quote
Another Proton failure today. Am I the only one getting really worried about these missions going up on Proton? Would Ariane V be a technically feasible alternative?I'm worried about these Protons aswell :(
From the ESA Bulletin: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ESA-Bulletin-161/
Quote
The ESA/Roscosmos programme is proceeding as planned
with milestones for both 2016 and 2018 missions.
Integration of the flight avionics and first models of the
instruments rounded off last year’s system-level integration
and test activities for the 2016 mission. The 2018 mission
System PDR was held on 6 November with a fully integrated
ESA/Roscosmos team.
System AIT activities for the 2016 mission Trace Gas Orbiter
(TGO) and the Schiaparelli Mars entry and landing vehicle
continued at Thales Alenia Space France and Italy respectively.
The FM spacecraft are now being prepared for system
environmental testing, with instrumentation for the tests
being added and the test preparations under way for EMC,
mechanical vibration and thermal vacuum testing. Several
System Verification Tests with the Mission Control Centre in
Darmstadt have been accomplished, proving commandability
of the spacecraft as well as end-to-end data flow.
In the 2018 mission, the System PDR Board meeting was a
very important event where both agencies co-chaired the
proceedings. Although the review was not complete, and
required a further step, significant progress was made by
confirming interfaces and allowing procurement to proceed.
The Rover Analytical Design Laboratory Sample Preparation
and Distribution Sub-system EQM mechanisms are all being
manufactured. Procurements for the ESA contributions
to the Roscosmos Descent Module and for the ESA Carrier
Module are progressing.
The 2016 Mission and Science Ground Segment is moving
forward with the spacecraft developments. An ESA/
Roscosmos Working Group continues to define the
implementation of the interfaces to integrate a Russian
64-m antenna into the ESTRACK system to augment the
science return of the 2016 TGO mission. The station will also
become a baseline antenna to support the 2018 spacecraft
cruise phase.
Post by: Star One on 05/16/2015 01:30 pm
Another Proton failure today. Am I the only one getting really worried about these missions going up on Proton? Would Ariane V be a technically feasible alternative?
That was my first thought when I heard about another Proton failure. Just hoping ESA have been really hands on with their oversight of all aspects of this mission.
Post by: catdlr on 05/22/2015 05:18 pm
Published on May 22, 2015
European Space Agency, ESA
The ExoMars 2016 mission will try to answer one of the toughest and most intriguing questions in our Solar System: is there, or has there ever been, life on Mars?
https://youtu.be/tqAdwmCGUGI
Post by: gosnold on 05/23/2015 10:46 am
ESA Euronews: Mars mystery - ExoMars mission
The ExoMars 2016 mission will try to answer one of the toughest and most intriguing questions in our Solar System:
Will the Proton launch succeed this time?
Post by: Archibald on 05/23/2015 05:05 pm
ESA Euronews: Mars mystery - ExoMars mission
The ExoMars 2016 mission will try to answer one of the toughest and most intriguing questions in our Solar System:
Will the Proton launch succeed this time?
Thanks to you I have now to clean my computer screen from all the coffee that sprouted from ny nose as I red this comment.
Post by: mcgyver on 05/27/2015 08:36 am
The Russian lander appears to be flatter than Viking was,I'm in trouble figuring out the final design of the lander: I found several documents, blogs, forums, sites, all showing different designs, as they evolved during years (exomars was initially expected to launch on 2013... :-\ )
Does Exomars 2018 have a final design for lander?
Vented airbags?
Non-vented airbags?
Legs? How many? 3 or 4?
How many petals?
How many ramps for the rover?
I'd like to build a 3d model, but it's really hard in this mess of data! :(
Post by: bolun on 07/01/2015 02:22 pm
Post by: Blackstar on 07/02/2015 03:42 pm
But at least it has a drill.
Post by: Star One on 07/02/2015 05:37 pm
Several years ago when ESA first started talking about this mission they produced some of the coolest rover art you could imagine. The rover looked like a race car. Now it has evolved into the ugliest rover you could imagine.
But at least it has a drill.
In its defence it's designed to do a job not for its looks.
Post by: savuporo on 08/20/2015 05:59 pm
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/48289-exomars-newsletter-archive/?farchive_objecttypeid=31
Schiaparelli and TGO mating pictures and post
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/55828-exomars-2016-test-campaign-journal-04-schiaparelli-and-trace-gas-orbiter-united-for-the-first-time/
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/18/2015 06:10 pm
РОСКОСМОС @fka_roscosmos 5m5 minutes ago
Перенос старта миссии ExoMars-2016 на март следующего года: http://www.federalspace.ru/107/
Translated from Russian by Bing Wrong translation?
Postponement of the launch mission ExoMars-2016 to March of the following year: http://www.federalspace.ru/107/
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/18/2015 06:41 pm
Oops:
РОСКОСМОС @fka_roscosmos 5m5 minutes ago
Перенос старта миссии ExoMars-2016 на март следующего года: http://www.federalspace.ru/107/
Translated from Russian by Bing Wrong translation?
Postponement of the launch mission ExoMars-2016 to March of the following year: http://www.federalspace.ru/107/
Seem to be a slip from January 6 to March 14 next year, so still inside the 2016 launch window. Not sure why though....
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/18/2015 06:41 pm
Post by: Stan Black on 09/19/2015 07:50 am
Is the Trace Gas Orbiter based on the Mars Express bus?
AIUI, TGO is a new design.
It appears to use a lot of things from the Spacebus platform, like the 1,194 mm central tube, avionics and propulsion?
Post by: Star One on 09/19/2015 10:09 am
Oops:
РОСКОСМОС @fka_roscosmos 5m5 minutes ago
Перенос старта миссии ExoMars-2016 на март следующего года: http://www.federalspace.ru/107/
Translated from Russian by Bing Wrong translation?
Postponement of the launch mission ExoMars-2016 to March of the following year: http://www.federalspace.ru/107/
Seem to be a slip from January 6 to March 14 next year, so still inside the 2016 launch window. Not sure why though....
Wouldn't it just be a knock on effect from the issues with Proton this year, was expecting some kind of slippage in this for a while now.
Post by: plutogno on 09/19/2015 11:19 am
Wouldn't it just be a knock on effect from the issues with Proton this year, was expecting some kind of slippage in this for a while now.
read the ESA release linked above. it's a problem on the ESA side, not a Proton issue
Quote
A problem recently discovered in two sensors in the propulsion system of the entry, descent and landing demonstrator module has prompted the recommendation to move the launch of the ExoMars 2016 mission, initially foreseen in January, to March, still within the launch window of early 2016.
Post by: Blackstar on 09/19/2015 10:56 pm
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/20/2015 03:42 am
How do Mars launch windows work? The ESA press release refers to an early window and a late one. Is there a gap in the window, or is that simply a less ideal time? And what determines that?
Well, I know that there are several days during any given month that a trajectory to Mars might be unhealthily impacted by the Moon's mass. You want to launch when you're not passing all that close to the Moon -- unless you have a trajectory designed to use the Moon for a gravity assist, but that would involve short, tight launch windows.
Avoiding the Moon's gravity influence drives an intermittent set of exclusion dates, though, not a "we're good for a month, bad for a month and good again for another month" kind of thing. For that, I dunno what would drive it.
Post by: wbianco on 09/20/2015 03:54 am
Post by: GClark on 09/20/2015 05:46 am
EDIT to include: You can increase the duration of the window by utilizing an intermediate orbit such as was done with MOM. This is usually done when LV performance is rather tight or you need to de-conflict your launch schedule. As long as the mission leaves Earth orbit during the window, you're on your way.
Post by: plutogno on 09/24/2015 09:13 am
http://spacenews.com/faulty-component-that-delayed-exomars-affects-other-esa-programs/
Post by: Archibald on 09/28/2015 07:00 am
Post by: bolun on 10/17/2015 09:15 am
Artist’s impression depicting the ExoMars 2016 entry, descent and landing demonstrator module, named Schiaparelli, on the Trace Gas Orbiter, and heading for Mars.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/10/Schiaparelli_on_Trace_Gas_Orbiter3
Image credit: ESA–David Ducros
Post by: bolun on 10/17/2015 09:22 am
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/56622-exomars-2018-landing-site-search-to-narrow/
Quote
Later this month, scientists and engineers will meet to choose which two, of four possible landing sites for the ExoMars 2018 mission, should be retained as candidates.
Quote
The four sites currently under discussion – Mawrth Vallis, Oxia Planum, Hypanis Vallis and Aram Dorsum – are all located relatively close to the martian equator and to each other. All sites show evidence of having been influenced by water in the past, with large exposures of ancient rocks now accessible at the surface.
Two of the four candidate sites will be down-selected during the 20-21 October meeting for continued analysis. The final decision regarding which of these two sites will be the primary landing site and which the backup will be made during 2017.
An announcement of the two sites to be carried forward will be published on these pages following the final decision on 21 October.
Where on Mars?: http://nmanaud.github.io/whereonmars/
Post by: vjkane on 10/21/2015 08:59 pm
Does anyone know if the workshop presentation are on line anywhere?
Post by: Blackstar on 10/21/2015 09:19 pm
Post by: redliox on 10/22/2015 12:09 pm
Oxia Planum has been selected as the preferred landing site for the 2018 rover and station: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Landing_site_recommended_for_ExoMars_2018
Does anyone know if the workshop presentation are on line anywhere?
Hope this makes for a start:
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/54724-oxia-planum/ (http://exploration.esa.int/mars/54724-oxia-planum/)
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/54707-recommendation-for-the-narrowing-of-exomars-2018-landing-sitesrecommendation-for-the-narrowing-of-exomars-2018-landing-sites/ (http://exploration.esa.int/mars/54707-recommendation-for-the-narrowing-of-exomars-2018-landing-sitesrecommendation-for-the-narrowing-of-exomars-2018-landing-sites/)
So, in regards to Oxia winning "first place nomination", would one argue that it's flat, safe landscape with a decent possibility of
Post by: bolun on 10/30/2015 02:23 pm
Aerial image of a rover egress test performed in the outdoor Mars Yard at the Toulouse site of France’s CNES space agency.
Getting a robotic rover off its lander will be the next most nerve-wracking moment for Europe’s 2018 ExoMars mission after landing.
On 28 and 29 October a simulation took place between France and the Netherlands to let ESA’s Planetary Robotics Laboratory test such an ‘egress’ scenario.
A half-scale model resembling the ExoMars lander and a rover prototype sat in the Mars Yard in Toulouse, while its operators worked a thousand kilometres away from ESA’s ESTEC technical centre in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
The ESTEC team – from ESA, Thales Alenia Space and Altec – received only limited information to guide them: still images and telemetry from the rover and lander.
The operators had to decide in which direction to drive – forwards or backwards. The lander has two sets of tracks for the rover to descend in case one side is blocked by the Mars-like terrain.
Four separate egress simulations were performed over the course of two days, the final score: 4 successes and 1 failure.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/10/Successful_egress
Image credit: CNES
Post by: bolun on 11/11/2015 10:40 am
Post by: bolun on 11/27/2015 02:55 pm
European payload selected for ExoMars 2018 surface platform
Quote
The platform is expected to operate for at least one Earth year, imaging the landing site, monitoring the climate, investigating the atmosphere and analysing the radiation environment.
It will also study the distribution of any subsurface water at the landing site, and perform geophysical investigations of the internal structure of Mars.
Roscomos and the IKI Space Research Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences had already identified a preliminary payload of instrument packages to fulfil these goals, some of which anticipated the inclusion of European elements.
Quote
The two European-led instruments proposed are the Lander Radioscience experiment (LaRa) and the Habitability, Brine Irradiation and Temperature package (HABIT).
LaRa will reveal details of the internal structure of Mars, and will make precise measurements of the rotation and orientation of the planet by monitoring two-way Doppler frequency shifts between the surface platform and Earth.
It will also be able to detect variations in angular momentum due to the redistribution of masses, such as the migration of ice from the polar caps to the atmosphere.
HABIT will investigate the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, daily and seasonal variations in ground and air temperatures, and the UV radiation environment.
The four European sensor packages in the two Russian-led instruments will monitor pressure and humidity, UV radiation and dust, the local magnetic field and plasma environment.
Image credit: Roscosmos/Lavochkin/IKI
Post by: Semmel on 12/01/2015 11:18 am
Quote
The mission is due to arrive at Mars on Oct. 19, 2016, three days after the orbiter deploys the Schiaparelli lander for entry into the Martian atmosphere. The mothership will then steer into orbit around Mars, using the planet’s thin wispy upper atmosphere for a series of aerobraking maneuvers to eventually settle in a circular orbit 400 kilometers, or about 250 miles, above the surface.
First time I hear them talking about aerobraking. Also, first time I see that actually used. Was there any other probe that used aerobraking/aerocapture before? I cant remember any. Would be a real novelty if they do that. Would be fantastic if that kind of technology gets developed.
Post by: EgorBotts on 12/01/2015 11:32 am
Its a bit risky however, calculation and trajectory better be exactly as predicted...
Post by: Silmfeanor on 12/01/2015 11:55 am
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/30/exomars-orbiter-and-lander-on-display/
First time I hear them talking about aerobraking. Also, first time I see that actually used. Was there any other probe that used aerobraking/aerocapture before? I cant remember any. Would be a real novelty if they do that. Would be fantastic if that kind of technology gets developed.
MAVEN also used aerobraking into martian orbit, or at least lowering from the initial insertion orbit, as have done other NASA - mars orbiters. This one will use the same procedure; powered insertion burn, then gradual lowering using the atmosphere.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/01/2015 12:18 pm
Post by: Star One on 12/01/2015 06:11 pm
ExoMars nears launch, thanks to nonstop work in factory
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/30/exomars-nears-launch-thanks-to-nonstop-work-in-factory/
Post by: Blackstar on 12/01/2015 09:35 pm
Maybe not necessary to do that yet, but wait until the launch.
Post by: notsorandom on 12/02/2015 03:28 pm
Post by: vjkane on 12/02/2015 04:01 pm
Post by: Star One on 12/02/2015 04:08 pm
It's the rover mission that is having the development issues and may slip to 2020
More like financial issues from my reading of it.
Post by: Blackstar on 12/02/2015 06:02 pm
It's the rover mission that is having the development issues and may slip to 2020
More like financial issues from my reading of it.
The Russians are building the lander, correct? I would expect them to have more issues than the Europeans in designing a rover.
Post by: atomic on 12/02/2015 06:16 pm
Post by: Star One on 12/02/2015 07:16 pm
It's the rover mission that is having the development issues and may slip to 2020
More like financial issues from my reading of it.
The Russians are building the lander, correct? I would expect them to have more issues than the Europeans in designing a rover.
I mean ESA are having trouble drumming up the final tranches of money for the rover.
Post by: NovaSilisko on 12/02/2015 07:24 pm
Right - aerobraking from an elliptical to a circular orbit is common, aerocapture into orbit has never been done.
It gets tricky because the two are often confused... I'm fairly certain the SFN article refers to the typical case of a propulsive maneuver followed by slow aerobraking into a circular orbit.
Post by: vjkane on 12/02/2015 09:07 pm
I mean ESA are having trouble drumming up the final tranches of money for the rover.My understanding is that the funding has been secured but came late enough that schedules are tight. At least one article has said the Russians are having trouble with their end of the development but that was awhile ago and may be cleared up.
Post by: Blackstar on 12/02/2015 10:39 pm
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/roscosmos-10-year-budget-cut-for-third-time/551337.html
Post by: bolun on 12/22/2015 04:06 pm
After arrival in Baikonur, #ExoMars #EDM #Schiaparelli was transferred into airlock to protect from contamination
Post by: bolun on 12/22/2015 04:08 pm
#ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter #TGO loaded onto Antonov in Turin, departing to Baikonur this pm
Post by: bolun on 12/22/2015 04:11 pm
Careful lifting on ropes: More pics of today's #ExoMars #TGO loading onto 3rd Antonov in Turin
Post by: bolun on 12/23/2015 01:44 pm
Next stop #Mars! 3rd #ExoMars flight with Trace Gas Orbiter #TGO safely arrived & unloaded in Baikonur this morning
Post by: Star One on 12/28/2015 05:32 pm
Quote
Launch on March 14 is currently set for approximately 0930 GMT (5:30 a.m. EST), according to Jorge Vago, ESA’s ExoMars project scientist.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/12/27/european-mars-probe-arrives-at-launch-site/
Post by: redliox on 12/28/2015 06:21 pm
Post by: redliox on 12/28/2015 08:25 pm
Advice to ESA: wrap up the Trace Gas Orbiter, consider backup options for the Exorover, and slowly step back.
Post by: Kryten on 12/28/2015 08:48 pm
This thread's title may have to be edited soon. Roscosmos may be turning into a new entity due to government reforms: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38959.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38959.0)Federal space agency Roscosmos has been replaced by state corporation Roscosmos; the title is fine.
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/28/2015 11:03 pm
http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-federal-space-agency-dissolved-responsibilities-be-transferred-state-2240831
Nothing much is likely to change in the short term.
Post by: Blackstar on 12/29/2015 03:34 am
http://russianspaceweb.com/roskosmos.html
Post by: bolun on 01/03/2016 11:33 am
ESA BR-327 EXOMARS 2016 (Brochure)
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 01/15/2016 09:19 am
https://mobile.twitter.com/pbdes/status/687930116572360704
Quote
ESA's Woerner: We still need financing for ExoMars 2018 mission. If we don't get it this yr, the mission can postpone to 2020 w/o a problem.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pbdes/status/687931277811519490
Quote
ESA's Woerner: No indication from Russia that financial issues threaten ExoMars 2018 rover/lander launch. The problems are on the Euro side.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pbdes/status/687933107115286528
Quote
Woerner remarks on ExoMars 2018 suggest it's in real trouble; he evokes possible delay to 2020 & won't estimate $$ needed to complete 2018.
Post by: Star One on 01/15/2016 07:27 pm
Post by: Blackstar on 01/15/2016 07:31 pm
http://tass.ru/en/science/849578
[NOTE: I suggest NOT clicking on that link. It might be dubious from a security standpoint--I got a "vulnerability blocked" warning shortly after clicking there. I have reprinted the article below.]
Russia to give up Moon, Mars missions witout support from Europe
Science & Space January 14, 14:42 UTC+3
"The launches will be implemented only with the participation of the European Space Agency in the project," says the note to the Moon-29/Moon-Grunt and Bumerang projects
MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Russia will give up soil probes on the Moon and the Phobos as the Mars satellite under the 2025 federal space program, if it finds no support for these projects from the European space corporation, according to a draft federal space program released on Thursday.
The program draft was prepared by Russia’s space corporation (Roscosmos) for submission to the Russian government for approval.
"The launches will be implemented only with the participation of the European Space Agency in the project," says the note to the Moon-29/Moon-Grunt and Bumerang projects. The Bumerang/Expedition-M project is the repetition of the Phobos-Grunt (Phobos-Soil) project that ended in a failure in 2011. The project aims to establish an interplanetary station to survey Mars and its satellites and deliver Phobos soil samples to the Earth. The spacecraft can be launched in 2024, if the European Space Agency cooperates with Roscosmos in this project.
The Moon-Grunt (Moon-Soil) project envisages using a special device to collect and place soil samples from the Moon’s southern pole into a thermostatic chamber and deliver them to the Earth. Given the ESA’s participation, the launch of this space vehicle is scheduled for 2024. Also, the document introduces new numeration of Russian lunar missions expected for implementation until 2025.
Infographics Russia’s Moon exploration program Russia’s Moon exploration program Russia is developing a new generation Advanced Crew Transportation System. Its first flight to the Moon is planned for 2028. Infographics by TASS Specifically, the Moon-Grunt project was enumerated as No. 28, which has now been assigned to the back-up project Moon-Resource Landing Vehicle: two landing stations will be sent at once to the Earth’s satellite in 2021: Moon-27 and its back-up vehicle Moon-28. Previously, the back-up vehicle had no number of its own.
There are plans for 2019 to launch a spacecraft as part of the project Moon-Globe (Moon-25) and for 2020 to launch a space vehicle under the project Moon-Resource Landing Vehicle (Moon-26).
The previous draft of the federal space program prepared by Roscosmos in April 2015 envisaged plans to launch the Moon-26 vehicle in 2021 and the Moon-27 spacecraft and the back-up vehicle at the beginning and at the end of 2022.
Russian orbital constellation to include 70 satellites instead of 95 by 2025 According to the draft federal space program for 2016-2025 the number of satellites in the Russian orbital constellation in 2025 will reach 70 instead of previously planned 95 spacecraft.
According to the document that is being prepared for the government’s approval, in 2025 the number of satellites in the Russian orbital constellation will reach not 95, as it had been planned with the budget of 2 trillion roubles, but 70 spacecraft given the new financing.
The number of launches of spacecraft under the new federal space program for 2016-2025, in view of the budget cuts, will decrease from 185 to 150.
According to previous reports, the financing of the federal space program until 2025 would amount to some 1.4 trillion rubles ($18.27 billion), and the draft program presented last spring provided for budget financing worth 2 trillion roubles ($26.11 billion).
According to the document, instead of the planned 47, the new draft envisages 38 launches of Earth remote sensing (ERS) satellites, and by 2025 the orbital constellation will comprise 25 ERS spacecraft instead of the planned 20. The new federal space program draft excludes the launches of the meteorological satellites Electro-M, Meteor-MP, Obzor-O (system for high resolution observation of Russian territory) and Lider (space complex for all-weather monitoring of man-made and natural disasters).
As for the fundamental space research, according to the federal space program draft, the number of satellite launches to this end will be cut from 20 to 15, and the orbital constellation will decrease from 10 to 4 satellites. The launches of one Intergeliozond (space complex for heliophysics research of the Sun) and four Rezonans satellites (complex for studying the interaction of electromagnetic waves and particles in the Earth's magnetosphere) are excluded from the new program.
Roscosmos also intends to cut spending on servicing the International Space Station (ISS) in 2016-2015 by almost 30 billion rubles.
On Monday, the Izvestia daily reported, citing the final federal space program draft, submitted by Roscosmos to ministries, that over the next decade Russia will allocate 252.1 billion roubles ($3.43 billion) for flight control, servicing the Russian segment of ISS and implementing a program of scientific experiments. Earlier FSP draft submitted in April last year envisaged spending 281.4 billion rubles ($3.82 billion) on the space program. The final draft was cut by almost a quarter to 1.521 trillion rubles ($21 billion) for the next 10 years.
Post by: redliox on 01/16/2016 10:42 pm
Well at least '2016 will do some good.
Post by: Blackstar on 01/17/2016 06:35 pm
So ExoMars 2018/2020 might not even happen at this rate? And likewise for the Phobos mission? I feel bad for both agencies.
Well at least '2016 will do some good.
No, 2018/20 is probably going to happen. They have Europe on board for that.
The Russian Phobos mission is not going to happen. They don't have money to go it alone. However, Japan is planning a Phobos mission.
Post by: Star One on 01/17/2016 08:14 pm
So ExoMars 2018/2020 might not even happen at this rate? And likewise for the Phobos mission? I feel bad for both agencies.
Well at least '2016 will do some good.
No, 2018/20 is probably going to happen. They have Europe on board for that.
The Russian Phobos mission is not going to happen. They don't have money to go it alone. However, Japan is planning a Phobos mission.
I am pretty hopeful about the Japanese Phobos mission happening.
Post by: bolun on 02/03/2016 09:04 am
02 February 2016 16:52
The hazardous task of fuelling Schiaparelli, the ExoMars 2016 entry, descent, and landing demonstrator module, has been safely completed at Baikonur. The module now has sufficient fuel on board to power the thrusters it will use while descending through the Martian atmosphere in October this year.
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57282-schiaparellis-fuel-tanks-are-filled/
Image credit: ESA -T. Walloschek
Post by: catdlr on 02/18/2016 09:53 pm
Published on Feb 18, 2016
Timelapse video showing Schiaparelli, the entry, descent and landing demonstrator module of the ExoMars 2016 mission, being mated with the Trace Gas Orbiter on 12 February in the Baikonur cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. The spacecraft are now in their launch configuration and will remain united until 16 October, when Schiaparelli will separate from the orbiter to descend to the surface of Mars on 19 October. Launch is planned for the 14-25 March launch window.For more information about the spacecraft mating, see: United they stand – Trace Gas Orbiter and Schiaparelli are joined.
For more information about ExoMars, see: http://www.esa.int/exomars
https://youtu.be/pO9DvfeYI7Y
Post by: bolun on 02/24/2016 04:48 pm
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/02/ExoMars_2016_Schiaparelli_descent_sequence_16_9
Image credit:ESA/ATG medialab
Post by: bolun on 02/26/2016 07:54 am
The ExoMars 2016 entry, descent, and landing demonstrator module, also known as Schiaparelli, will touch down on Meridiani Planum, a relatively smooth, flat region on Mars, on 19 October 2016. The landing is targeted to take place within the solid ellipse marked on this topographical map. The ellipse, centred at 6° West and 2° South, measures about 100 km East-West and 15 km North-South, and is valid for a launch on 14 March. The near-equatorial landing site is North-West from the current location of NASA's Opportunity rover.
One of the reasons for choosing this landing site was because of its relatively low elevation, which means that there is a sufficient thickness of atmosphere to allow Schiaparelli's heat shield to reduce the module's velocity and get ready to deploy its parachute. The final firing of its thrusters will ensure a soft and controlled landing.
The lowest areas on this map are shown in green, while the highest areas are dark brown. The large crater on the right (East) of the image is Endeavour, which is about 22 km in diameter. Opportunity has been studying its western rim since 2011.
The topographical map is from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA), an instrument on the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS).
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57446-exomars-2016-landing-site/
Image credit: IRSPS/TAS-I
Post by: redliox on 02/26/2016 10:47 am
Post by: notsorandom on 02/26/2016 01:28 pm
Post by: llanitedave on 02/26/2016 03:43 pm
Post by: plutogno on 02/27/2016 05:54 am
Wow they are targeting pretty much the same area Opportunity was aimed at.
why act surprised? the landing site of Schiaparelli has been known for years!
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/27/2016 06:01 am
Yes, it's true. It will take descend photos, but no photos from the surface.
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/27/2016 03:30 pm
Matthew
Post by: notsorandom on 02/27/2016 04:08 pm
Meridiani is a big place. The two landing ellipsis are almost on top of each other. It is a good place to land. Well mapped from orbit and uniquely shown to be flat and hazard free from the ground.Wow they are targeting pretty much the same area Opportunity was aimed at.
why act surprised? the landing site of Schiaparelli has been known for years!
Post by: NovaSilisko on 02/27/2016 04:32 pm
I wonder if Opportunity will be able to watch it come in?
Matthew
I've been wondering the same. Even if it's just a distant star/streak as it enters the atmosphere, that would still be very cool to see. Not much time out of Opportunity's schedule either - just look in the right direction at the right time and take a sequence of images for ~10-15 minutes and see if anything turns up.
Post by: Dalhousie on 02/28/2016 04:04 am
I've been talking to people about Schiaparelli and looks like most of them are disappointed that the lander doesn't have a surface camera to take photos.
Yes, it's true. It will take descend photos, but no photos from the surface.
I would have thought that, depending of the field of view and angle it should be able to take images from the surface, much like Huygens, whose cameras also were primarily for descent.
Post by: redliox on 02/28/2016 08:25 am
I wonder if Opportunity will be able to watch it come in?
Matthew
I've been wondering the same. Even if it's just a distant star/streak as it enters the atmosphere, that would still be very cool to see. Not much time out of Opportunity's schedule either - just look in the right direction at the right time and take a sequence of images for ~10-15 minutes and see if anything turns up.
When Phoenix landed the MRO was utilized to image its decent, so it could do this again if ESA asked. Considering Opportunity is operating on an extended mission, there's no concern compromising its mission and this would be NASA's best shot at imaging descent from the bottom up, so some engineer is going to request this if it hasn't happened already. I'm sure the Opportunity team will make an attempt; it's too close to not be tempting.
The only bad thought that occurs to me would be the bad irony if Opportunity finally died just days before ESA's probe arrives. :(
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/28/2016 01:50 pm
I wonder if Opportunity will be able to watch it come in?
Matthew
I've been wondering the same. Even if it's just a distant star/streak as it enters the atmosphere, that would still be very cool to see. Not much time out of Opportunity's schedule either - just look in the right direction at the right time and take a sequence of images for ~10-15 minutes and see if anything turns up.
When Phoenix landed the MRO was utilized to image its decent, so it could do this again if ESA asked. Considering Opportunity is operating on an extended mission, there's no concern compromising its mission and this would be NASA's best shot at imaging descent from the bottom up, so some engineer is going to request this if it hasn't happened already. I'm sure the Opportunity team will make an attempt; it's too close to not be tempting.
The only bad thought that occurs to me would be the bad irony if Opportunity finally died just days before ESA's probe arrives. :(
I would like to rather facetiously suggest that the ExoMars lander has no surface camera because the plan is to land close enough to Oppy so that Oppy can go drive over to it and document how successful the landing was... ;)
Post by: notsorandom on 02/29/2016 03:47 pm
I wonder if Opportunity will be able to watch it come in?I had some time to do the math on this to see if it were a realistic possibility. I used the landing ellipse to get an idea of the position of Schiaparelli relative to Opportunity. So this is only good for the final phase of flight. It is possible there would be other phases of EDL that may be observable to Opportunity. Using Google Earth (on Mars) I centered the landing zone based on the coordinates given then eyeballed the far extents using craters as a guide. Therefore these numbers are not exact. The east end of the landing zone is 26km from the rover with the middle at 43km and the west end at 90km. This gives a field of view where Schiaparelli could touch down of 105 degrees. The curvature of Mars will not get in the way. Even at 90km away the end of the parachute phase of flight will be well above the horizon.
Matthew
Pancam has a field of view of 16.8 degrees. At least 7 shots would be needed to cover this horizontal distance. A few more shots in the horizontal plane would be prudent as the lander will be flying over a path outside the landing ellipse and may be visible during that time as well. Only one or two shots would be needed in the vertical plane. The highest the lander will be in altitude under parachute is 11km, which will be quite a distance from the landing site. Still at the closest possible landing distance Pancam can keep both the horizon and a point 11km above the landing site in the same shot. Which is worse than the worst case. I am not sure how quickly Pancam can take a photo and pan. This may be a reasonable or unreasonable number of shots that need to be taken in the period when the lander is visible. Navcam has a wider field of view but much lower resolution.
The next question I ask was will it even be visible to Pancam if a shot is taken at the right time and in the right direction? The parachute has a diameter of 12 meters. This presents a problem. Each pixel on Pancam covers .28 mrads. Even at the closest distance of 26km the resolution is 7.25 meters per pixel. Since it doesn't take up more than 4 pixels Schiaparelli will be too small to make out and depending on how reflective it is will be difficult to detect. I hope I messed up somewhere in that math because it doesn't look like Opportunity will be getting much of a show. Had Opportunity not spent the last 12 years driving in the wrong direction it might have a shot of seeing Schiaparelli land! I didn't look into the entry phase of flight. That will happen far up range but might be high enough so that the geometry could be favorable for that to be seen.
Post by: Blackstar on 02/29/2016 04:27 pm
Post by: notsorandom on 02/29/2016 05:55 pm
What about MRO? Will NASA attempt to image the entry and descent with MRO? They did that previously with Curiosity.Even though MRO will be further away HiRISE is much better for the task. MRO saw both Phoenix and Curiosity under parachute. Phoenix had some similarities with Schiaparelli so we can be confident that taking Schiaparelli picture is a doable task. Both parachutes measure 12 meters, same sized targets. Since MRO needs a bit of luck to be taking a picture at the right time and looking at the right spot the similarly sized landing ellipses and duration of flight under parachute would indicate a similar chance of catching Schiaparelli. The landing ellipses are both 100km long with Phoenix having a 19km wide one and Schiaparelli having a 15km wide one. The parachutes were used for 177 seconds for Phoenix and Schiaparelli is planning for 121 seconds. Though Phoenix spent more time being visible under parachute it wasn't particularly well behaved during EDL. The parachute was deployed seven seconds late meaning it was off course from where MRO would have expected it. Phoenix landed 28km off center near the edge of its ellipse and MRO still caught it.
Post by: Blackstar on 02/29/2016 09:30 pm
Post by: Phil Stooke on 02/29/2016 10:08 pm
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC2015/EPSC2015-764-1.pdf (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC2015/EPSC2015-764-1.pdf)
(oriented NW-SE). Now it is much more E-W or slightly WSW-ENE. I will be interested to learn why this has changed.
Post by: plutogno on 03/01/2016 05:33 am
I will be interested to learn why this has changed.
March launch window instead of January?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 03/01/2016 05:42 pm
Post by: Blackstar on 03/02/2016 08:34 pm
Post by: bolun on 03/04/2016 09:27 am
The European Space Agency's ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter, ready for a 2016 launch opportunity, will carry two Electra UHF relay radios provided by NASA.
This image show a step in installation and testing of the first of the orbiter's Electra radios, inside a clean room at Thales Alenia Space, in Cannes, France, in June 2014.
ESA's ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter will study the Martian atmosphere for the presence of methane and other gases that may be present in small concentrations. It will also deploy the ESA Schiaparelli Mars landing demonstration craft and provide communications support for robotic missions on the surface of Mars. Relay of information from Mars-surface craft to Mars orbiters, then from Mars orbit to Earth, enables receiving much more data from the surface missions than would otherwise be possible.
The Electra radio design from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, includes special features for relay use between an orbiter and a rover or stationary lander. For example, it can actively adjust the data rate during a communication session − slower when the orbiter is near the horizon from the surface robot's perspective, faster when it is overhead. NASA's Curiosity Mars rover and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter already use Electra technology for relay of data. A NASA orbiter currently on the way to Mars, the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) spacecraft, also carries an Electra radio.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/03/TGO_Electra_radios
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ESA/TAS
Post by: bolun on 03/07/2016 08:09 am
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/ExoMars_TGO_operations
Post by: bolun on 03/07/2016 08:10 am
Post by: bolun on 03/07/2016 08:11 am
Post by: catdlr on 03/07/2016 09:03 am
Published on Mar 7, 2016
On 14 March at 09:31 GMT ExoMars 2016 will be launched from Baikonur onboard a Proton rocket.
The joint European and Russian ExoMars mission will test key exploration technologies and search for evidence of methane and other rare gases in the Martian atmosphere. These gases could result from geological processes or they could be signatures of current biological activity on the planet.
This film examines the two European science instruments on the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) - CaSSIS and NOMAD. The high-resolution CaSSIS (Colour and Stereo Surface Imaging System) acts as the orbiter’s scientific eye. It is a telescope with a sophisticated detector that can provide colour and stereo images over a nine and a half kilometre wide strip. CaSSIS will examine recurring slope linea - dark lines on the surface of Mars at different times of the day over the planet’s seasons. These linea are believed to be associated with liquid brine. They increase in size during the Martian spring and summer and fade away during autumn and winter.
NOMAD (Nadir and Occultation for MArs Discovery) will be the first high resolution instrument of its kind around the planet. It will observe information about Mars’ atmosphere by looking at the Sun during sunsets and sunrises. It contains three spectrometers - two working in the infrared and one in ultraviolet - and can identify trace gases in the atmosphere, such as methane. The presence of methane in Mars’ atmosphere could result from simple life forms like microbes.
https://youtu.be/iUuJqXaCOWw
Post by: bolun on 03/08/2016 06:41 pm
On 19 October 2016, the ExoMars 2016 entry, descent, and landing demonstrator module, known as Schiaparelli, will land on Mars in a region known as Meridiani Planum.
The landing sites of the seven rovers and landers that have reached the surface of Mars are indicated on this map.
The background image is a shaded relief map of Mars, based on data from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) instrument, on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/03/Landing_sites_on_Mars
Image credit: Background image: MOLA Science Team
Post by: bolun on 03/12/2016 01:27 pm
Post by: Blackstar on 03/14/2016 05:49 pm
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/03/proton-m-first-exomars-spacecraft/
Still some major milestones ahead, but getting into orbit was a key one considering the Proton's problems.
Post by: AegeanBlue on 03/15/2016 05:11 pm
Post by: baldusi on 03/15/2016 11:13 pm
And the European EDL might be fundamental to further fund ESA. If they get more media coverage than Rosetta from this mission, ESA might start to became the sort of national pride the NASA and Roscosmos are.
Post by: Blackstar on 03/16/2016 12:09 am
Now that it is in TMI, I can get really excited! Between MAVEN and TGO the communications assets at Mars have been fully renewed. Now somebody should send an LCT experiment to really achieve a qualitative jump in bandwidth.
And the European EDL might be fundamental to further fund ESA. If they get more media coverage than Rosetta from this mission, ESA might start to became the sort of national pride the NASA and Roscosmos are.
I think that lasercomm is baselined by NASA for their next Mars orbiter.
Post by: Dalhousie on 03/16/2016 12:40 am
I have a Schiaparelli question: apparently it includes a laser retroreflector. Could we use it to measure the distance from Earth, in the same way that we use the Apollo and Luna retroreflectors? Is it possible with current technology, or is Mars too far?
I was under the impression the laser in on TGO.
Post by: Star One on 03/16/2016 08:53 am
Post by: bolun on 03/16/2016 10:39 am
I have a Schiaparelli question: apparently it includes a laser retroreflector. Could we use it to measure the distance from Earth, in the same way that we use the Apollo and Luna retroreflectors? Is it possible with current technology, or is Mars too far?
Here you have some info about INRRI.
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/48898-edm-science-payload/
http://www.asi.it/en/news/new-italian-instrument-board-exomars
Credits: INFN & Thales Alenia Space
Post by: Sam Ho on 03/16/2016 10:57 pm
Now that it is in TMI, I can get really excited! Between MAVEN and TGO the communications assets at Mars have been fully renewed. Now somebody should send an LCT experiment to really achieve a qualitative jump in bandwidth.
And the European EDL might be fundamental to further fund ESA. If they get more media coverage than Rosetta from this mission, ESA might start to became the sort of national pride the NASA and Roscosmos are.
I think that lasercomm is baselined by NASA for their next Mars orbiter.
From the NEX-SAG REPORT, 14 December 2015, page 35:
Quote
Finding 19: Improved telecom is required to acquire the higher-spatial resolution data sets needed to make significant progress on key resource and science objectives. A full order of magnitude increase, through systems such as optical communications, would be required to achieve spatial coverage, at these higher spatial resolutions, beyond a few percent of the planet.
http://mepag.nasa.gov/reports/NEX-SAG_draft_v29_FINAL.pdf
A Mars Laser Communications Demonstration was planned for MTO. That never flew, but LADEE had a Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration, and a Laser Communications Relay Demonstration is planned as a hosted payload.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/22/2016 02:40 pm
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/22/2016 03:48 pm
Do we know what orientation the spacecraft would be in at that time? And how far away it was? I'd rather not see Schiaparelli's heat shield peppered with holes, or the atmospheric instruments for that matter.
ESA's commentary on the same image is kind of terrifyingly nonchalant: http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57639-exomars-spotted-in-space/
Quote
In their images, the spacecraft appears as a bright object surrounded by at least six other fainter spots – elements of Proton's discarded upper stage
Post by: vjkane on 03/22/2016 03:53 pm
That's probably not good.Any hits would have affected the orientation of the spacecraft, and that kind of data is, I believed, relayed to the ground. The lack of news here is probably good (and I'm sure the spacecraft controllers would have immediately checked the data for any signs of a hit).
Do we know what orientation the spacecraft would be in at that time? And how far away it was? I'd rather not see Schiaparelli's heat shield peppered with holes, or the atmospheric instruments for that matter.
ESA's commentary on the same image is kind of terrifyingly nonchalant: http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57639-exomars-spotted-in-space/
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/22/2016 03:59 pm
So, if this Briz stage failure was going to impact the mission (literally), it would have to have happened already, I think, at the time of the failure. We'll know for certain after commissioning is complete in another few weeks.
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/22/2016 03:59 pm
The lack of news here is probably good (and I'm sure the spacecraft controllers would have immediately checked the data for any signs of a hit).
I hope so. ESA's labelled version of the image has to be incorrect though, otherwise the spacecraft is right in the middle of a huge cloud of gas and debris, and I don't know what effects that might have on the instruments (or the star trackers)
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/22/2016 04:02 pm
Do we know what orientation the spacecraft would be in at that time? And how far away it was? I'd rather not see Schiaparelli's heat shield peppered with holes, or the atmospheric instruments for that matter.
This is highly unlikely.
We're not talking about micrometeoroids or objects moving in a different orbit at a high speed relative to the spacecraft. We're talking about disintegration of the stage just after an apparent safe separation.
Post by: asmi on 03/22/2016 04:04 pm
I hope so. ESA's labelled version of the image has to be incorrect though, otherwise the spacecraft is right in the middle of a huge cloud of gas and debris, and I don't know what effects that might have on the instruments (or the star trackers)Keep in mind that since the spacecraft is flying away from the Earth, this photo shows the view close to being "from behind", so even if debris is significantly ahead (or behind) spacecraft, they would still appear close to it.
With that said, some word from Mission Control to clarify the situation would certainly be welcomed.
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/22/2016 04:06 pm
This is highly unlikely.
We're not talking about micrometeoroids or objects moving in a different orbit at a high speed relative to the spacecraft. We're talking about disintegration of the stage just after an apparent safe separation.
I had been thinking of the consequences of an overpressure and detonation of the stage, which would presumably propel pieces of debris outward at high velocity. But it's hard to know for sure what happened.
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/22/2016 04:07 pm
I hope so. ESA's labelled version of the image has to be incorrect though, otherwise the spacecraft is right in the middle of a huge cloud of gas and debris, and I don't know what effects that might have on the instruments (or the star trackers)Keep in mind that since the spacecraft is flying away from the Earth, this photo shows the view close to being "from behind", so even if debris is significantly ahead (or behind) spacecraft, they would still appear close to it.
With that said, some word from Mission Control to clarify the situation would certainly be welcomed.
IKI-RAN sent word yesterday, confirming that ExoMars star and sun trackers function normally.
Post by: plutogno on 03/22/2016 04:08 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/22/2016 04:11 pm
http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1262&tx_news_pi1[news]=32&tx_news_pi1[controller]=News&tx_news_pi1[action]=detail&cHash=d60a991c06952b97c6e3657788ff2c21
Translating for you :
Briz-M placed ExoMars into a highly accurate orbit. An emergency correcting maneuver wasn't needed. They've conducted a single engine burn after launch as part of standart post-launch checkout. Solar and stellar trackers are working normally. Temperature of science instruments is within acceptable limits.
Post by: gosnold on 03/22/2016 05:58 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/22/2016 06:00 pm
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/22/2016 07:10 pm
Is that cloud more likely to be the exhaust from the Briz's final TMI burn, or remaining propellants/pressurants rapidly released during a Briz RUD event?
Post by: asmi on 03/22/2016 07:26 pm
The animation of the several images taken of Mars Express and its accompanying cloud of junk (Popular Mechanics, http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a20044/exomars-narrow-escape-launch-disaster/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a20044/exomars-narrow-escape-launch-disaster/) ) rather clearly shows a roughly ovoid gas cloud tracking with the probe and the Briz debris.Logic tells me that any RUD event would generate expanding cloud of debris and gases (either uniform, or anisotropic, but still expanding). Looking at the photos, "debris" seem to just fly along. Does separation event produces any kind of particles? I find it hard to believe that RUD event would produce debris that is sufficiently slow as to appear to be in the same relative position to the spacecraft for any amount of time.
Is that cloud more likely to be the exhaust from the Briz's final TMI burn, or remaining propellants/pressurants rapidly released during a Briz RUD event?
Post by: Star One on 03/22/2016 08:55 pm
Quote
The vertical line is likely an artifact of the detector, a bad column of pixels. I suspect the fuzzy streaks are also not real, but it’s possible they could be from an expanding cloud of gas from the upper stage following along the spacecraft as well, free to do so from the lack of anything to stop it in space.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/21/images_of_exomars_taken_on_its_way_into_space.html
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/22/2016 11:34 pm
The Slate is sceptical on the PM article.QuoteThe vertical line is likely an artifact of the detector, a bad column of pixels. I suspect the fuzzy streaks are also not real, but it’s possible they could be from an expanding cloud of gas from the upper stage following along the spacecraft as well, free to do so from the lack of anything to stop it in space.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/21/images_of_exomars_taken_on_its_way_into_space.html
Plait added an update on that point:
Quote
UPDATE, Mar. 22, 2016: Popular Mechanics just posted an article postulating that the uper Proton stage exploded, which is why there is so much debris. I have to admit when I saw the animation that thought crossed my mind fleetingly, but I had heard nothing about that, so I dismissed it. That was a mistake on my part; I should follow through when my skeptic alarm bell goes off. Note that in the following paragraph I wondered if the fuzzy streaks were real or not. This idea is not yet proven, but it seems consistent with what we're seeing here. Thanks to @phylan for the ink.
Post by: Mikhail-G on 03/23/2016 09:58 am
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/23/2016 11:47 am
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/ExoMars_performing_flawlessly
ExoMars is performing flawlessly
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/23/2016 04:20 pm
(UPDATE 23 March 2016) The original caption for the large image above, published on 17 March, stated that it showed ESA's ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) as a bright object at centre, following separation from the Breeze-M upper stage of the Proton rocket that delivered the spacecraft into an interplanetary orbit on 14 March.
Following additional analysis by teams at ESA’s Near-Earth Object Coordination Centre, it has become clear that TGO is in fact not in this image – it was already further ahead and beyond the frame. Thus all of the moving objects in this image are related to the Breeze-M.
We apologise for the initially erroneous information. The caption below has been updated.
Post by: jgoldader on 03/23/2016 05:21 pm
The article on PM doesn't give the timespan of the movie, so I don't know how much relative motion of the debris should have been expected during the duration of the movie.
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/28/2016 04:06 pm
ExoMars: a long awaited reboot of the Russian planetary program
By: Svetoslav Alexandrov
Monday, March 28, 2016
Quote
On March 14, a Russian Proton rocket blasted off from Baikonur Cosmodrome, placing the first mission of the ExoMars project on its way to the Red Planet. This mission represents a long awaited reboot of the Russian planetary program, although not in a way Russian space enthusiasts expected or maybe even want.
The project has a long history. Plans and concepts have been revised many times. Back in 2009, NASA and ESA joined hands to launch two missions as part of the project in 2016 and 2018. But in 2012 NASA terminated its participation in ExoMars, which forced ESA to seek the help of Russia. Finally, in March 2013, ESA and Roscosmos signed a deal where Russia became a full partner.
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/28/2016 05:16 pm
http://thespacereview.com/article/2952/1 (http://thespacereview.com/article/2952/1)
ExoMars: a long awaited reboot of the Russian planetary program
By: Svetoslav Alexandrov
Monday, March 28, 2016
<snip>
Congratulations, Svetoslav! We have two NSF members published in this issue of TSR!
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/28/2016 06:22 pm
Since the article was prepared for publication last Monday, and Zak published his findings in Popular Mechanics last Tuesday, I didn't comment on the Briz-M situation.
Post by: Blackstar on 03/29/2016 12:56 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/01/2016 10:22 am
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/715806340296359947
cool one :)
Post by: Star One on 04/01/2016 08:37 pm
Quote
ExoMars orbiter – Verified account @ESA_TGO
This weekend I will have travelled my first 50 million km to #Mars. Only another ~450 million to go! #ExoMars
https://mobile.twitter.com/ESA_TGO/status/715909400838479873
Post by: Blackstar on 04/02/2016 01:37 am
Post by: Dalhousie on 04/05/2016 12:45 pm
http://spacenews.com/roscosmos-gives-detailed-rebuttal-to-reports-of-proton-upper-stage-anomaly-after-exomars-separation/
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/06/2016 09:12 am
On Monday and Tuesday ACS was tested. Today we're expecting FREND to be switched on.
Next week - complex calibrations and taking data from our Sun.
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/07/2016 10:11 am
Source : IKI-RAN:
http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1262&tx_news_pi1[news]=37&tx_news_pi1[controller]=News&tx_news_pi1[action]=detail&cHash=da860a2efae86fa96b992f323978bf34
Post by: bolun on 04/14/2016 10:01 am
The first image taken by the Trace Gas Orbiter of the ESA–Roscosmos ExoMars 2016 mission.
The image was taken by the Colour and Stereo Surface Imaging System, CaSSIS, and points to a randomly selected portion of the sky close to the southern celestial pole.
The picture shows the result of taking one CaSSIS frame, turning the camera’s rotation mechanism, and then taking another. By subtracting the two frames, a series of bright and dark spots are seen, all equally offset from each other, demonstrating that these are positive and negative images of the same stars.
The field-of-view is 0.2º in the horizontal direction, and is a subset of a larger image, extracted for this purpose to show the stars at a reasonable size.
The arrows indicate the offset star positions.
In operation at Mars, about 400 km above the planet, CaSSIS will sweep out a swath as TGO approaches it, then turn the rotation mechanism by 180º and image the same swath as it recedes. By doing so, CaSSIS will make stereo images of the surface.
Related article: First light for ExoMars (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/First_light_for_ExoMars)
Image credit: ESA/Roscosmos/CaSSIS
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/04/ExoMars_first_light_-_annotated
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/15/2016 11:02 am
The average measured dose of galactic cosmic rays is 15 µGy/h, the average particle flow is 2,9 cm2/s.
FREND science suit and the instrument Lulin-MO are planned to work during the whole flight to Mars.
Post by: plutogno on 04/21/2016 11:45 am
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/04/21/new-os-for-exomarstgo/
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/21/2016 01:24 pm
Post by: Blackstar on 04/21/2016 01:40 pm
In space there's noone to hit Cntrl+Alt+Del :)
Yesterday I was hanging out with some people who work on several spacecraft (New Horizons, Mars Odyssey, MRO, primarily) and we were talking about the Hitomi failure. They explained about having a ground test simulator for the software. We didn't get too detailed, but apparently they're all paranoid about software stuff. The person who worked New Horizons told me about a mistake that they made (not sure if it was NH, she operates about a dozen spacecraft) that they caught just in time. Could have lost the spacecraft from a simple error in the code.
Post by: Star One on 04/21/2016 04:48 pm
In space there's noone to hit Cntrl+Alt+Del :)
Yesterday I was hanging out with some people who work on several spacecraft (New Horizons, Mars Odyssey, MRO, primarily) and we were talking about the Hitomi failure. They explained about having a ground test simulator for the software. We didn't get too detailed, but apparently they're all paranoid about software stuff. The person who worked New Horizons told me about a mistake that they made (not sure if it was NH, she operates about a dozen spacecraft) that they caught just in time. Could have lost the spacecraft from a simple error in the code.
I think that's NH because I believe I saw it in a recent article?
Post by: denis on 04/25/2016 07:13 pm
In space there's noone to hit Cntrl+Alt+Del :)
Actually in some sense there is, as the ground can send a specific TC to trigger a reconfiguration to the redundant units.
As usually you'll patch the software on one EEPROM image at a time, you would then reboot on the old/correct software (assuming whatever went wrong with the new software didn't do any irreversible damage obviously).
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/25/2016 07:57 pm
Btw Phobos 1 mission in 1988 had a code in PROMs which turned off altitude control system. This was needed for tests on ground, but it was dangerous in space. A single bug in a software command accidentally led to executing this line in PROM's code... which was disastrous.
Yeh, software is not trivial.
Post by: redliox on 04/25/2016 08:10 pm
It's a good thing my joke actually contributed to something constructive :)
Btw Phobos 1 mission in 1988 had a code in PROMs which turned off altitude control system. This was needed for tests on ground, but it was dangerous in space. A single bug in a software command accidentally led to executing this line in PROM's code... which was disastrous.
Yeh, software is not trivial.
Somewhere in Soviet control there was an epic face palm when that was discovered I bet.
I'm at least glad computers and communications have improved since the 1980s, though of the course the same bugs can lurk all the same. No offense to Russia, but I'm glad ESA's doing the lion's share of at least the first ExoMars mission looking over the track records of Mars Express compared to both Phobos and Mars '96.
Post by: Malderi on 04/29/2016 04:36 pm
In space there's noone to hit Cntrl+Alt+Del :)
Yesterday I was hanging out with some people who work on several spacecraft (New Horizons, Mars Odyssey, MRO, primarily) and we were talking about the Hitomi failure. They explained about having a ground test simulator for the software. We didn't get too detailed, but apparently they're all paranoid about software stuff. The person who worked New Horizons told me about a mistake that they made (not sure if it was NH, she operates about a dozen spacecraft) that they caught just in time. Could have lost the spacecraft from a simple error in the code.
Depends on how you define "software" - the logic code running on the computers, or the command sequencing that is uploaded on a sometimes-daily basis? Sometimes people use "software" for both. Although I suppose it doesn't matter, since "Thou Shalt Test As You Fly, and Fly As You Test" is about as written-in-stone as this industry gets.
Post by: Star One on 05/04/2016 06:24 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUOP6hd5lhY
Post by: bolun on 06/15/2016 02:55 pm
Checking in with the Trace Gas Orbiter
Quote
Three months since launch and with a little over 260 million km to travel before reaching Mars, the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter instruments are running through their paces this week during the mid-course checkout tests.
Quote
.... the tests will be run autonomously from the onboard mission timeline, with no real-time intervention, just as will be the case during routine science operations. The commands, generated by the ExoMars Science Ground Segment team at the European Space Astronomy Centre, were sent to the spacecraft by mission operators on 8 June via the New Norcia ground station and are being executed on board this week.
Ground stations at New Norcia, Malargüe, and Canberra will receive the data, which are then transmitted to the mission operations centre and science ground segment, and on to the principal investigators.
This is the last opportunity for calibration and configuration tests on the instruments before mission operators turn their attention to preparing for the next major operational milestones.
The first of these is a deep space manoeuvre on 28 July to line the spacecraft up to intercept Mars on 19 October.
From the end of July onwards preparations begin in earnest for the separation of Schiaparelli from TGO on 16 October, followed by the TGO orbit insertion manoeuvre on 19 October, and the entry, descent and landing of Schiaparelli on the same day.
Post by: bolun on 06/16/2016 12:37 pm
The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter acquired its first image of Mars on 13 June 2016 as part of its extensive instrument commissioning en route to the Red Planet.
The line-of-sight distance to Mars on 13 June was 41 million kilometres, giving an image resolution of 460 km/pixel. The planet is roughly 34 arcseconds in diameter at this distance. The Tharsis region of Mars, home to the planet’s largest volcanoes, faces the spacecraft in this view.
Related article: ExoMars sets sights on the Red Planet (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/ExoMars_sets_sights_on_the_Red_Planet)
Image credit: ESA/Roscosmos/ExoMars/CaSSIS/UniBE
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/06/TGO_s_first_image_of_Mars
Post by: bolun on 06/28/2016 08:51 am
This is a test version of the parachute that will slow the Schiaparelli entry, descent and landing module as they plummet through the martian atmosphere on 19 October.
When the module is about 11 km from the surface, descending at about 1700 km/h, the parachute will be deployed by a mortar. The parachute will slow the module to about 200 km/h by 1.2 km above the surface, at which stage it will be jettisoned.
The parachute is a ‘disc-gap-band’ type, as used for the ESA Huygens probe descent to Titan and for all NASA planetary entries so far.
The canopy, with a normal diameter of 12 m, is made from nylon fabric and the lines are made from Kevlar, a very strong synthetic material.
Tests of how the parachute will inflate at supersonic speeds were carried out with a smaller model in a supersonic wind tunnel in the NASA Glenn Research Center.
The full-scale qualification model, pictured here, was used to test the pyrotechnic mortar deployment and the strength of the parachute in the world’s largest wind tunnel, operated by the US Air Force at the National Full-Scale Aerodynamic Complex in the Ames Research Center, California.
The tower is needed to place the mortar – the horizontal tube at the top of the tower – at the centre of the wind tunnel for testing.
Schiaparelli was launched on 14 March with the Trace Gas Orbiter on a Proton rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakstan.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/06/Testing_Schiaparelli_s_parachute
Image credit: USAF Arnold Engineering Development Complex
Post by: bolun on 07/14/2016 01:24 pm
22 June 2016
With just over half of the journey to Mars completed, the Schiaparelli entry, descent and landing module has carried out its mid-cruise checkout. DREAMS and DECA have called home to report that they are in good health.
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57987-schiaparelli-delivers-mid-term-report/
Image credit: ESA/ATG medialab
Post by: bolun on 07/19/2016 08:43 pm
Quote
On 28 July, ExoMars/TGO will perform one of the most important activities during its voyage to Mars: a powerful engine burn in deep space that will change the craft’s direction and velocity by some 334 m/second.
This mid-course trajectory correction – dubbed DSM-1 (for deep-space manoeuvre 1) – will line the spacecraft up to intersect the Red Planet on 19 October, targeting the landing site chosen for the Schiaparelli mission: Meridiani Planum.
Post by: plutogno on 07/22/2016 08:23 am
Quote
Main engine test burn 18.07 was unsatisfactory, so the #exomars team ran it again today. All went great!https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/756150294736756736
Post by: bolun on 07/22/2016 01:40 pm
In order to precisely deliver the Schiaparelli landing demonstrator module to the martian surface and then insert ExoMars/TGO into orbit around the Red Planet, it’s necessary to pin down the spacecraft’s location to within just a few hundred metres at a distance of more than 150 million km.
To achieve this amazing level of accuracy, ESA experts are making use of ‘quasars’ – the most luminous objects in the Universe – as ‘calibrators’ in a technique known as Delta-Differential One-Way Ranging, or delta-DOR.
Until recently, quasars were only poorly understood. These objects can emit 1000 times the energy of our entire Milky Way galaxy from a volume that it not much bigger than our Solar System, making them fearfully powerful.
They are fuelled by supermassive black holes – which are many, many times more massive than our Sun – feeding on matter at the centre of their host galaxies. In addition to their extreme luminosity, their extreme distance means that, seen from Earth, they appear to be fixed in the sky and their positions can be mapped with high precision, making them very useful as reference points for spacecraft navigation.
In the delta-DOR technique, radio signals from ExoMars/TGO are being received by two widely separated deep-space ground stations, one, say, at New Norcia, Western Australia, and one at Cebreros, Spain, and the difference in the times of signal arrival is precisely measured.
Next, errors due to current conditions in Earth’s atmosphere (which affect all radio signals passing through) are derived by simultaneously tracking radio signals from a quasar. Engineers can apply these as corrections to the signal received from ExoMars/TGO, delivering a significantly more accurate fix on its position.
On Wednesday this week, ESA ground stations began the first of many delta-DOR observations that will be used to precisely locate ExoMars/TGO, using quasar P1514-24, seen inset in an image of ESA's deep-space tracking station at Malargüe, Argentina, above.
Delta-DOR observations will be increasingly performed as the journey to Mars enters the crucial phases, enabling flight dynamics teams to generate precise instructions for thruster burns and separation timing and to assess manoeuvre performance.
“In October, in the final critical week before Mars arrival, teams will be conducting two delta-DOR observations daily,” says Mattia Mercolino, responsible for delta-DOR activities at ESOC, ESA’s operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany.
“It’s an excellent example of critical, real-time teamwork between the flight dynamics experts, the ground station operators, the ExoMars mission controllers and our delta-DOR team, and it would be much more difficult to get to Mars without this expertise.”
How precisely will we know ExoMars/TGO’s location?
“The current set of delta-DOR observations will enable us to locate the spacecraft to less than 1000 m when it’s near Mars, a distance of slightly more than 150 million km from Earth,” says Mattia.
“This is comparable to detecting from the location of an object in Singapore from Darmstadt, to about 5 cm precision.”
“In future, with currently planned technology improvements, we should be able to get the accuracy down to just 150 m at 150 million km.”
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/07/Mars_navigation
Image credit: Estrack image: ESA/D. Pazos – Quasar P1514-24 inset image: Rami Rekola, Univerity of Turku, 2001
Post by: bolun on 07/27/2016 08:40 am
A Google hangout was held on Tuesday, 26 July, with ExoMars mission experts and scientists. It included a live Q&A and an update on the cruise to Mars, the crucial mid-course manoeuvre on 28 July and the upcoming preparations for the arrival phase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhnrLp1xDnA
Post by: Svetoslav on 07/28/2016 10:15 am
The burn will last for about 50 mins.
Post by: Svetoslav on 07/28/2016 10:53 am
Post by: bolun on 07/28/2016 01:26 pm
Following a 52-min firing of its powerful engine this morning, ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter is on track to arrive at the Red Planet in October. The initial analysis by the flight dynamics experts showed a tiny 0.01% underperformance against the planned 'delta-v' of 326.497 m/second. The event marked the completion of deep space manoeuvre 1 (DSM-1), which will be followed by DSM-1 (much smaller) on 11 August. The burn got underway as planned at 11:30 CEST and ran for 52 minutes.
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/07/28/bigburn-complete/
Post by: asmi on 07/28/2016 01:37 pm
#BIGBURN COMPLETEIf the burn of 326 m/s took 52 minutes to execute, it would mean about 0.1 m/s^2 acceleration. Not exactly "powerful" in my book :D
Following a 52-min firing of its powerful engine this morning, ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter is on track to arrive at the Red Planet in October. The initial analysis by the flight dynamics experts showed a tiny 0.01% underperformance against the planned 'delta-v' of 326.497 m/second. The event marked the completion of deep space manoeuvre 1 (DSM-1), which will be followed by DSM-1 (much smaller) on 11 August. The burn got underway as planned at 11:30 CEST and ran for 52 minutes.
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/07/28/bigburn-complete/
Post by: bolun on 08/11/2016 08:35 am
Quote
Tomorrow, Thursday, 11 August, the mission will conduct DSM-2, designed as a follow-on burn to provide whatever additional delta-v is needed after the first.
Quote
DSM-2 will target a delta-v of 17.7 m/second, and is planned to run for 155 seconds – just under three minutes.
Post by: bolun on 08/11/2016 10:00 am
Quote
Burn complete! @ESA_TGO #ExoMars #littleburn
Post by: bolun on 08/11/2016 10:02 am
Quote
High-data-rate link reestablished; 2nd @ESA_TGO deep-space manoeuvre sequence complete, as planned #exomars (1/2)
Quote
.@ESA_TGO mission team will now wait for ESOC flight dynamics to analyse today's burn & do a fresh orbit determination #exomars (2/2)
Post by: bolun on 08/12/2016 08:05 am
The colour-coded topographic view shows relative heights and depths of terrain in the Meridiani Planum region on Mars. Red and white represent the highest terrain, and blues and purples show lower terrain such as the interiors of craters (see key).
The ellipse marked on the map outlines the target landing area for Schiaparelli, the ExoMars Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module. The site was chosen based on its relatively flat and smooth characteristics, in order to adhere to landing safety requirements.
Endeavour crater lies immediately to the south east of the landing ellipse.
The image is based on a digital terrain model of the region, from which the topography of the landscape can be derived. The view comprises four images taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera on Mars Express on 23, 26and 29 August 2005, and 1 August 2010, and covers a region 352.5°–356.5°E and 4.5°S–0.5°N.
Related article: Spotlight on Schiaparelli's landing site (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express/Spotlight_on_Schiaparelli_s_landing_site)
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/08/Meridiani_Planum_topography_with_Schiaparelli_landing_ellipse
Image credit: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin, CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
Post by: bolun on 08/19/2016 08:00 am
Little burn results
Quote
The Exomars DSM2 executed on 11/08/2016 had a nominal magnitude of 17.712 m/s. Based on the orbit determination done today using tracking data up until the end of the New Norcia pass on 17/08/2016, the manoeuvre over-performed by 20.3 mm/s with a direction error of 262 mdeg compared to the requested direction.
The spacecraft are on track and doing well.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/25/2016 06:27 am
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/25/2016 12:32 pm
Hard to believe that Mars arrival is only 3.5 weeks away and all has gone silent from ESA....are there any detailed timeline on the exact timings of TGO orbit insertion and Schiaparelli landing on October 19?
Found some of the time marks on Roscosmos' page: http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342 (http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342)
TGO orbit insertion burn will start at 13:09 UTC and will last for 2 hours 19 minutes.
Schiaparelli will hit the Martian atmosphere at 14:42 UTC.
Post by: redliox on 09/25/2016 10:13 pm
Found some of the time marks on Roscosmos' page: http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342 (http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342)
TGO orbit insertion burn will start at 13:09 UTC and will last for 2 hours 19 minutes.
Schiaparelli will hit the Martian atmosphere at 14:42 UTC.
2 hours sounds crazy long for an insertion burn at Mars, but that is indeed the burn time Roscosmos' page mentions. I have seen and read about instances of orbit insertion taking place for an hour although, again, I haven't heard of one for over 2 hours before.
Post by: vaporcobra on 09/25/2016 10:46 pm
Found some of the time marks on Roscosmos' page: http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342 (http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342)
TGO orbit insertion burn will start at 13:09 UTC and will last for 2 hours 19 minutes.
Schiaparelli will hit the Martian atmosphere at 14:42 UTC.
2 hours sounds crazy long for an insertion burn at Mars, but that is indeed the burn time Roscosmos' page mentions. I have seen and read about instances of orbit insertion taking place for an hour although, again, I haven't heard of one for over 2 hours before.
1500m/s of dV is necessary for orbital insertion in TGO's case :) Source is ESA themselves (ExoMars/TGO: Mars orbit insertion (MOI) section here http://esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/ExoMars_TGO_operations).
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 09/26/2016 09:57 am
Found some of the time marks on Roscosmos' page: http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342 (http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1271#c342)
TGO orbit insertion burn will start at 13:09 UTC and will last for 2 hours 19 minutes.
Schiaparelli will hit the Martian atmosphere at 14:42 UTC.
2 hours sounds crazy long for an insertion burn at Mars, but that is indeed the burn time Roscosmos' page mentions. I have seen and read about instances of orbit insertion taking place for an hour although, again, I haven't heard of one for over 2 hours before.
Probably a result of the relatively low-thrust main engine at 424 N. For comparison MRO had a total ~1kN. There is a lack of ITAR-free engines in Europe adequately sized for orbit insertion of large payloads. There was a research programme to develop an ITAR-free ~1kN High Thrust Apogee Engine but all has gone quiet on that project.
Post by: savuporo on 09/26/2016 03:42 pm
Probably a result of the relatively low-thrust main engine at 424 N. For comparison MRO had a total ~1kN. There is a lack of ITAR-free engines in Europe adequately sized for orbit insertion of large payloads. There was a research programme to develop an ITAR-free ~1kN High Thrust Apogee Engine but all has gone quiet on that project.It was supposed to be in Phase 2 of development (http://www.lolannaicker.com/documents/SP2014_2969298.pdf). Should have passed PDR in 2014 and CDR in 2015
EDIT: And according to ESA Mars technology development plan as of 2015 (http://sci.esa.int/sci-ft/49777-european-space-agency-mars-robotic-exploration-preparation-2-programme-technology-plan-programme-of-work-2011-2016-and-relevant-procurement-plan/), its still being funded, although a tad late. Ref: E919-012MP
Post by: Svetoslav on 09/26/2016 03:50 pm
I asked the question about the length of the burn during the ExoMars hangout.
This is the response I was given:
https://youtu.be/MhnrLp1xDnA?t=2480
Post by: catdlr on 10/06/2016 03:56 am
European Space Agency, ESA
Published on Oct 5, 2016
Visualisation of the ExoMars Schiaparelli module entering and descending through the martian atmosphere to land on Mars.
Schiaparelli will enter the atmosphere at about 21 000 km/h and in less than six minutes it will use a heatshield, a parachute and thrusters to slow its descent before touching down in the Meridiani Planum region close to the equator, absorbing the final contact with a crushable structure.
The entire process will take less than six minutes: the animation has been sped up.
Schiaparelli is set to separate from the Trace Gas Orbiter on 16 October, after a seven-month cruise together through space, and will enter the atmosphere on 19 October at 14:42 GMT.
For an overview of the key timings and altitudes corresponding to the events portrayed in this animation see the Schiaparelli descent sequence graphic: http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/02/ExoMars_2016_Schiaparelli_descent_sequence_16_9
Both Schiaparelli and the Mars scenery in this animation were computer generated.
https://youtu.be/s3WCtJt46qU?t=001
https://youtu.be/s3WCtJt46qU
Post by: plutogno on 10/06/2016 05:35 pm
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/10/06/schiaparelli-command-sequence-sent-to-space/
Post by: Blackstar on 10/07/2016 01:41 pm
Post by: jacqmans on 10/07/2016 04:31 pm
N°34-2016
Paris, 7 October 2016
Call for Media: ExoMars arrives at the Red Planet
The ExoMars 2016 mission will enter orbit around the Red Planet on 19 October. At the same time, its Schiaparelli lander will descend to the surface. Representatives of traditional and social media are invited to attend a two-day event at ESA's ESOC
control centre in Darmstadt, Germany.
ExoMars is a joint endeavour between ESA and Russia's Roscosmos space agency, and comprises the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) and the Schiaparelli entry, descent and landing demonstrator.
TGO will make a detailed inventory of Mars' atmospheric gases, with particular interest in rare gases like methane, which implies that there is an active, current source. TGO aims to measure methane's geographical and seasonal dependence and help to
determine whether it stems from a geological or biological source.
TGO will start its science mission at the end of 2017, following a year of complex aerobraking manoeuvres to circularise its orbit. It will also act as a relay for ESA's ExoMars 2020 rover.
Schiaparelli will separate from TGO on 16 October, entering the atmosphere for a six-minute descent to a region in Meridiani Planum, on 19 October.
It will test a range of technologies to enable a controlled descent and landing on Mars in preparation for future missions, including a heatshield, a parachute, a propulsion system and a crushable structure.
Schiaparelli also carries a small science package that will record the wind speed, humidity, pressure and temperature at its landing site, as well as obtain the first measurements of electric fields on the surface of Mars that may provide insight into
how dust storms are triggered.
The separation of Schiaparelli from TGO will be covered online. Media are invited to join mission experts at ESOC on 19 October to follow the orbit insertion of TGO and the landing of Schiaparelli, and to attend a briefing on 20 October when the first
descent camera images are expected.
Provisional schedule at ESOC, 19-20 October
(all times in CEST, programme/times subject to change)
19 October
15:00-22:00 (Doors open at 14:00)
The event programme for media and ExoMars project members will bring both groups together to follow the highlights of the orbit insertion of TGO and of the entry, descent and landing of Schiaparelli. During the programme confirmations for mission success
of TGO and Schiaparelli are expected. On stage, ExoMars engineers and scientists from ESA, Roscosmos and partner agencies will relay the technical and operational challenges of landing on Mars and will explain the scientific questions that are driving
these ambitious Mars robotic exploration programme. Operational status updates will be broadcasted live from the ExoMars control room into the stage programme. There will be live video connections to an Italian ExoMars event taking place in Rome and
to the postflight tour of ESA astronaut Tim Peake, who will stop by in London.
The event will also be live-streamed online at http://esa.int and will be broadcasted over satellite.
A special ESA social-TV programme will be available via Facebook Live on ESA's Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/ESA.
20 October
10:00-11:00 (Doors open at 09:00)
This media briefing will summarise the events of the night before, during which more telemetry and data are expected to arrive from TGO and Schiaparelli. ExoMars engineers, scientists and project managers will provide briefings on TGO and Schiaparelli.
Images taken during the descent from Schiaparelli will also be presented.
The media briefing will be streamed live online at http://esa.int and broadcast over satellite.
Media accreditation
Media representatives holding a valid press-ID should register here. https://myconvento.com/public/event_register/index/1465622
Social media users such as Youtubers, Tweeps, Bloggers, etc. may apply for social media credentials at: https://myconvento.com/public/event_register/index/1465667
Given the expected high demand and limits owing to logistical, security and health and safety constraints, it is possible that not all applications will be successful. Applicants will be informed whether they have been successful at the latest on 11
October.
Follow online
Separation will be reported online on 16 October at 17:20 GMT /
19:20 CEST.
The media briefings scheduled for 19 and 20 October will be live streamed via http://esa.int.
Realtime coverage of operational milestones in the lead up to separation on 16 October through until landing and orbit insertion on 19 October and in the days after will be provided in a frequently updated article at http://esa.int/exomars.
Milestones will also be reported via Twitter and Facebook.
Follow @esaoperations, @ESA_TGO, @ESA_EDM and @ESA_ExoMars or #ExoMars.
A special ESA social-TV programme will be available on ESA's Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/ESA
For detailed background information on the mission, see: http://exploration.esa.int/mars/
Post by: catdlr on 10/11/2016 09:17 pm
European Space Agency, ESA
Published on Oct 11, 2016
This animation shows the relative orbital paths of ESA's ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO), the Schiaparelli Entry, descent and landing Demonstrator Module and ESA's Mars Express on 19 October 2016, when TGO and Schiaparelli arrive at Mars. At the start of the animation, TGO and Schiaparelli are shown already separated, which is set to occur at 14:42 GMT (16:42 CEST) on 16 October.
The animation covers the time period between approximately 12:30 GMT (14:30 CEST) and 19:00 GMT (21:00 CEST) on 19 October, including the expected time of Schiaparelli touch down at 14:47 GMT (16:47 CEST) and the critical, 139-min TGO orbit insertion engine burn, ending at 15:34 GMT (17:34 CEST).
At the end of the animation, TGO has been captured into Mars orbit and is seen starting its first bound orbit, expected to be highly elliptical varying from about 300 km to 96 000 km above the planet’s surface and taking 4 sols (1 sol is a Martian day, equal to 24 hours and 39 minutes) to complete one revolution.
Mars Express is seen in its current polar orbit, from which it will have good visibility of the Schiaparelli module's descent and landing starting with atmosphere entry at 14:53 GMT (16:43 CEST). Mars Express will use its lander communication system to record signals from Schiaparelli during arrival, providing a critical record of the module's descent progress, trajectory and landing.
More about ExoMars:
http://www.esa.int/exomars
https://youtu.be/pFGJlGz5BD8?t=001
https://youtu.be/pFGJlGz5BD8
Post by: catdlr on 10/11/2016 09:19 pm
European Space Agency, ESA
Published on Oct 11, 2016
This animation shows the view of the arrival of ESA's ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) and the Schiaparelli Entry, descent and landing Demonstrator Module as seen from ESA's Mars Express on 19 October 2016.
More specifically, it shows the field of view as 'seen' by the Melacom radio receiver on Mars Express, which will be receiving signals from Schiaparelli beginning at 13:22 GMT (15:22 CEST) and ending at 15:08 GMT (17:08 CEST). The record of these signals from Schiaparelli will provide a critical indication of the module's descent progress, trajectory and landing.At the start of the animation, TGO and Schiaparelli are shown already separated, which is set to occur at 14:42 GMT (16:42 CEST) on 16 October.
The animation covers the time period between approximately 13:35 GMT (15:35 CEST) and 15:27 GMT (17:27 CEST) on 19 October, including the expected time of Schiaparelli touch down at 14:47 GMT (16:47 CEST).
At the end of the animation, Melacom has stopped recording signals from Schiaparelli and the view rotates as Mars Express slews into an Earth-pointing orientation to transmit the recorded signals to mission controllers at ESA's ESOC operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany.
More about ExoMars:
http://www.esa.int/exomars
More about the Melacom lander communication system:
http://blogs.esa.int/mex/2012/08/05/melacom-europes-voice-ears-at-mars/
https://youtu.be/HZonfgIuhwc?t=001
https://youtu.be/HZonfgIuhwc
Post by: eeergo on 10/14/2016 07:15 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/14/2016 07:26 am
1 cm/s TCM is planned to be executed an hour and a half from now. This is the final TCM before Schiaparelli release.
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/786828645717381120
Quote
To be very precise: 1.4 cm/sec #exomars
;)
Post by: bolun on 10/14/2016 12:31 pm
Quote
Today's @ESA_TGO orbit correction burn at 10:45CEST went extremely well #ExoMars (1/3)
Quote
We had a small under-performance against the 1.4 cm/sec target @ESA_TGO team will get a full report from Flight Dynamics #ExoMars (2/3)
Quote
@ESA_TGO and @ESA_EDM on track for separation at 16:42 CEST on Sunday #ExoMars (3/3)
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/15/2016 08:30 am
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/15/2016 02:40 pm
From https://twitter.com/esaoperations:QuoteToday's @ESA_TGO orbit correction burn at 10:45CEST went extremely well #ExoMars (1/3)QuoteWe had a small under-performance against the 1.4 cm/sec target @ESA_TGO team will get a full report from Flight Dynamics #ExoMars (2/3)Quote@ESA_TGO and @ESA_EDM on track for separation at 16:42 CEST on Sunday #ExoMars (3/3)
What effect will a very slightly less than targeted delta-v have on the landing?
Will the landing be on the "long" side of the center of the landing ellipse center (eastern side, closer-to-Opportunity side)?
Post by: asmi on 10/15/2016 02:50 pm
What effect will a very slightly less than targeted delta-v have on the landing?If my understanding of trajectory is correct, it will be the opposite - slightly higher entry angle, and it will reach atmosphere a bit sooner, so landing spot will be more westward then it would've been otherwise - assuming prograge orbit. TGO will require a bit more of dV post-separation to avoid hitting atmosphere too.
Will the landing be on the "long" side of the center of the landing ellipse center?
Post by: savuporo on 10/15/2016 04:52 pm
Quote
Correction: Over-performance. In any event, it was actually close to perfect #ExoMars
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/787328634486976512
Post by: denis on 10/15/2016 11:44 pm
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/16/2016 12:09 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Watch_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
13:25 CEST Separation timeline has started: Teams at ESOC are extremely busy monitoring the sequence of events scheduled for today's separation, expected at 16:42 CEST. Both the ExoMars/TGO orbiter and the Schiaparelli lander module are in great shape. The lander has been switched on and engineers monitoring telemetry - on-board status information - report that temperatures on Schiaparelli are nominal. ExoMars/TGO has already begun slewing - rotating in space - into the correct attitude for separation. Just prior to separation, at 16:31 CEST, mission controllers expect to lose the full data link with TGO, and then will follow progress by monitoring the basic unmodulated carrier signal only, as a sort of beacon. We may also see signals received via the GMRT radio telescope in Pune, India, although this is strictly an experiment and may not function as planned. One-way signal time today is 9 mins and 34 secs.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Live_updates_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/16/2016 02:17 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/16/2016 02:32 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:33 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:33 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:35 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:35 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:40 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/16/2016 02:41 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:45 pm
AOS in India.
Incidentally, this is important for Wednesday's landing. They will be using the 30-telescope Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Metrewave_Radio_Telescope as an experimental receiver to directly detect the extremely faint signals from Schiaparelli's landing, avoiding the need for orbital repeaters.
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:47 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:50 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/16/2016 02:52 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:57 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 02:59 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:02 pm
Carrier appears to fluctuate.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/16/2016 03:03 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/16/2016 03:04 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:04 pm
EDIT: And fortunately that's not something we need to worry about :D
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:09 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:10 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:19 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:26 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/16/2016 03:26 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:27 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/16/2016 03:27 pm
#ESOC Fight Dynamics reconfirming separation "unambiguous" via Doppler measurements "as foreseen". #ExoMars
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:28 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/16/2016 03:30 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:30 pm
Well, let's hope the lack of telemetry is just a minor inconvenience.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/16/2016 03:32 pm
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 10/16/2016 03:35 pm
Post by: orbitaldebris on 10/16/2016 03:35 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:37 pm
Yes Hmmmm. Very curious. Separation confirmed but no telemetry.
No TM but they have signal lock, so TGO's status is not completely unknown.
Just as I was posting, ESA Ops tweeted the triple peak structure I was mentioning a few posts ago.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/16/2016 03:38 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 03:43 pm
Hopefully they can fix the problem soon, because there's a maneuver coming up in just under 12 hours.
Yup, and it's the one that makes TGO step aside from EDM's path, so quite important ;)
Post by: jgoldader on 10/16/2016 03:44 pm
Post by: Ilikeboosterrockets on 10/16/2016 03:57 pm
I sure hope the Great Galactic Ghoul isn't reaping another robo-soul... :(
They know they aren't supposed to use time warp during separation events, right?
Post by: wxmeddler on 10/16/2016 04:21 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/16/2016 04:34 pm
Just to clarify, the lander (Schiaparelli) separated from the orbiter (TGO) and we see the doppler shift in the lander confirming a dV difference between the lander and the orbiter but now the orbiter isn't sending data in its (still strong) signal?
Exactly.
The Doppler shift was on the orbiter's Low Gain Antenna (LGA) carrier signal, which was on throughout the separation. The main antenna (High Gain Antenna, HGA) re-positioned afterwards for transmission but, aside from carrier emission, it's not sending data.
Post by: Xentry on 10/16/2016 04:41 pm
Just to clarify, the lander (Schiaparelli) separated from the orbiter (TGO) and we see the doppler shift in the lander confirming a dV difference between the lander and the orbiter but now the orbiter isn't sending data in its (still strong) signal?Yes, it looks like there was a doppler shift in the carrier signal from Schiaparelli consistent with the expected level (vsep=37cm/s, but we don't know what part of the relative velocity vector is visible along the line of sight direction). If all went well, the lander then turned itself off after 15min (as programmed to do to conserve battery).
Currently only the TGO is transmitting, and only the carrier signal.
EDIT: ESA now confirms that Schiaparelli itself sent some telemetry indicating separation, and expects to resolve the TGO telemetry problem within the next few hours (which they actually must, since a crucial divert manoeuvre is coming up for TGO in ~10h)
Post by: Ilikeboosterrockets on 10/16/2016 04:42 pm
"AOS Received with telemetry"
Which was posted 1 minute after they tweeted that they hadn't found the cause
Post by: Xentry on 10/16/2016 04:46 pm
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/787694758101676032
"AOS Received with telemetry"
Which was posted 1 minute after they tweeted that they hadn't found the cause
Whew. That glitch was NOT cool.
Post by: Ilikeboosterrockets on 10/16/2016 04:48 pm
"Receiving @ESA_TGO telemetry loud and clear. Separation parameters confirm @ESA_EDM has detached and headed to Mars"
Post by: savuporo on 10/17/2016 12:53 am
Whew. That glitch was NOT cool.Seconded, the team must have sweat buckets in the short timespan. Crossing fingers
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/17/2016 06:17 am
https://twitter.com/esaoperations
Deputy Flight Director Micha Schmidt: burn went as planned! @ESA_TGO in good shape & on track for next big event: orbit insertion #ExoMars
Flight Dynamics team at ESOC will analyse results of the orbit-raising burn & provide a new orbit determination in a couple hours #ExoMars
Post by: eeergo on 10/17/2016 06:24 am
Quote from: ESAoperations
Receiving ESA_TGO telemetry loud and clear. Separation parameters confirm EDM has detached and headed to Mars.
Post by: savuporo on 10/17/2016 06:29 am
The collision avoidance maneuver was performed successfully at night:..God dammit, this scared me :) I wouldn't say collision avoidance, i'd say trajectory correction .. or as @esaoperations put it, orbit raising, even though the craft is not yet on orbit. But yeah, its not going splat now.
EDIT : complete update from http://esa.int/mars_live
Quote
17 Oct 05:15 CEST: This morning at 04:42 CEST the TGO completed an orbit raising manoeuvre as planned. Without the manoeuvre, the spacecraft would, like Schiaparelli, remain on a collision course with Mars. Firing its engine for about 1m 46s raised the TGO’s orbit by several hundred km ‘above’ the planet, ahead of its planned orbit insertion on Wednesday. Signal with the TGO was reacquired after the burn, just after 05:00 CEST.
Post by: eeergo on 10/17/2016 02:40 pm
- Rotation rates and acceleration telemetry at separation time.
- EDM successfully went into hibernation to save battery power, as scheduled, shortly after separation. It is expected to wake up 1h15m before entry interface.
Also, TGO has been configured to "hot redundancy" mode, by which safe mode defaulting is inhibited during the MOI burn, to avoid partial burn failure modes.
Post by: savuporo on 10/17/2016 03:33 pm
Quote
17 Oct 15:45 CEST: The ExoMars/TGO orbiter and the Schiaparelli demonstration lander module are in good health and continuing, since separation yesterday at 16:42 CEST, on separate paths toward Mars. Schiaparelli is already on a trajectory that targets a landing in an area close to the equator known as Meridiani Planum. Following this morning's 11.6-m/sec orbit-raising manoeuvre, TGO has 'lifted' its trajectory so as to avoid the planet, while continuing to draw closer.
On Wednesday, TGO will conduct one of the most critical manoeuvres in its mission: a 139-min orbit entry manoeuvre planned to slow it by about 1.6 km/second (see "Burn baby, burn!"). Earlier today, the mission control team at ESA's ESOC operations centre configured TGO into a special mode for the orbit entry manoeuvre. The so-called 'fail-op' mode ensures that any routine problem that might arise − and that might trigger the craft to reset itself into 'safe mode' (which would shut down many ongoing activities, including propulsion) − will be ignored, so that the engine burn will in fact continue, more or less no matter what. The craft only gets one chance to enter orbit on the 19th.
Also today: mission controllers confirmed that TGO correctly received data transmitted by Schiaparelli during separation, and that the landing module had promptly gone to sleep shortly after being pushed away from the orbiter, as planned.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/18/2016 08:21 am
Mars orbit insertion #MOI command sequence confirmed loaded on board @esa_tgo at 7:35cest #ExoMars
Post by: jacqmans on 10/18/2016 02:02 pm
Mars as seen by the webcam on ESA’s Mars Express orbiter on 16 October 2016, as another mission, ExoMars, is about to reach the Red Planet.
A joint endeavour between ESA and Russia’s Roscosmos space agency, ExoMars 2016 comprises the Trace Gas Orbiter and the Schiaparelli entry, descent and landing demonstrator. After a seven-month journey, the two spacecraft are closing in on their destination, with the main craft entering orbit around Mars and Schiaparelli landing on 19 October.
This image was taken on 16 October, a couple of hours before Schiaparelli separated from its mothership at 16:42 GMT. Following separation, Schiaparelli still has three days and some six million km to travel before entering the atmosphere on 19 October for a six-minute descent to a region in Meridiani Planum, close to the planet’s equator.
This recent view of the planet shows its southern pole, covered by a permanent ice cap consisting mainly of carbon dioxide. The target region for Schiaparelli’s landing is not visible, beyond the horizon on the left.
ExoMars will arrive when the planet is almost at its closest point to the Sun along its orbit, and during northern winter (southern summer). At this time in the year, wind speeds are likely to increase and could lead to regional or even global dust storms.
The image was taken with Mars Express’s simple, wide-angle camera, which was originally meant only to provide visual confirmation that its Beagle-2 lander had separated when they arrived at Mars in December 2003. Switched back on in 2007, the camera has since been used for outreach, education and citizen-science, and was eventually adopted as a professional science instrument by ESA earlier this year.
With its unique vantage point and wide field of view, this webcam can capture global images of the Red Planet, a capability currently available only on one other spacecraft operating there, India’s Mars Orbiter Mission.
Mars can be seen from Earth at the moment: it is visible as a red spot to the naked eye, low on the horizon towards the south in the early evening skies from the northern hemisphere, and reaching higher elevations in the evenings and early mornings from the southern hemisphere.
Amateur astronomers observing the Red Planet with a telescope can join the Mars focus group of the Pro-Am Collaborative Astronomy project, an international group sharing images of specific astronomical objects and events taken by the amateur community to support professional astronomers.
The Mars observing campaign originally started in 2014 to monitor the passage of Comet Siding Spring near the Red Planet, and later evolved into a group dedicated to observe Mars and to provide the astronomical community with a long timeline of Mars observations, especially during times of dust activity.
This image was published on Sunday 16 October on the camera's dedicated Flickr channel, where all Mars Express webcam images are automatically posted on a daily basis.
Credit:ESA – CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
Post by: savuporo on 10/18/2016 02:38 pm
Edit: oh and, http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/10/17/burn-baby-burn-the-technology-of-the-mars-orbit-insertion-burn/ "Burn baby, burn! The technology of the Mars Orbit Insertion burn"
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/18/2016 04:47 pm
The insertion manoeuvre is planned to start at 15:04 CEST on 19 October. Tomorrow 13:04 GMT, 6AM PST if i did my math correct
Edit: oh and, http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/10/17/burn-baby-burn-the-technology-of-the-mars-orbit-insertion-burn/ "Burn baby, burn! The technology of the Mars Orbit Insertion burn"
My calculations are close but different.
A 139 minute burn ending at 15:34 GMT equals a start time of 13:15 GMT (15:15 CEST - 09:15 EDT - 06:15 PDT)
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/18/2016 04:53 pm
The insertion manoeuvre is planned to start at 15:04 CEST on 19 October. Tomorrow 13:04 GMT, 6AM PST if i did my math correct
Edit: oh and, http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/10/17/burn-baby-burn-the-technology-of-the-mars-orbit-insertion-burn/ "Burn baby, burn! The technology of the Mars Orbit Insertion burn"
My calculations are close but different.
A 139 minute burn ending at 15:34 GMT equals a start time of 13:15 GMT (15:15 CEST - 09:15 EDT - 06:15 PDT)
Actually, can someone confirm what the burn duration time is? Some ESA releases say 139 minutes. Some say 134 minutes. Some say 13:04:47 GMT is 30 minutes before commencement of the burn -- which would put burn start time at 13:34:47 GMT (about 19 minutes too late to start based on other releases that say the burn will be over at 15:34 GMT).
Editing this part of our article now, so updated times, if anyone has them, would be nice.
Thanks.
Post by: as58 on 10/18/2016 05:21 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/18/2016 05:26 pm
I understand from the ESA blog post that savuporo linked to the burn starts at 13:04:47 UTC. It also says that the duration of the burn is not predetermined but depends on the measured acceleration. Maybe that's the reason for different durations? Though the blog post only adds to confusion by saying in one place that the expected duration is ''ca. 134 mins' and in another 'roughly 139 minutes'.
I'm glad I'm not the only one confused. I'll go with what I can, but the media kit release is even more confusing, with a burn time duration of 147 minutes (start at 13:04 and end at 15:31 GMT).
Post by: as58 on 10/18/2016 06:49 pm
Post by: denis on 10/18/2016 06:55 pm
Well, 'roughly' and 'ca.' sort of make the estimates in the blog post consistent with each other. Though I hope there's not quite that much uncertainty in the performance of the engine...
Well, between 134 and 139 mins, there is less than 4% difference. I've never worked with such big engine, but for smaller thrusters, that would be compatible with expected variability.
That's why there is an accelerometer....
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/18/2016 07:05 pm
Well, 'roughly' and 'ca.' sort of make the estimates in the blog post consistent with each other. Though I hope there's not quite that much uncertainty in the performance of the engine...
Well, between 134 and 139 mins, there is less than 4% difference. I've never worked with such big engine, but for smaller thrusters, that would be compatible with expected variability.
That's why there is an accelerometer....
But 147 minutes as the media kit indicates...?
Post by: denis on 10/18/2016 07:09 pm
Well, 'roughly' and 'ca.' sort of make the estimates in the blog post consistent with each other. Though I hope there's not quite that much uncertainty in the performance of the engine...
Well, between 134 and 139 mins, there is less than 4% difference. I've never worked with such big engine, but for smaller thrusters, that would be compatible with expected variability.
That's why there is an accelerometer....
But 147 minutes as the media kit indicates...?
It's actually explained on the blog:
Quote
One hundred and forty seven minutes after the programmed ignition time, Trace Gas Orbiter will reach 'MOI Timeout'.
That's the maximum burn time: after 147mins, the engine will be shut down even if the delta-V measured by the accelerometer has not reached the commanded value.
So the expected burn duration is indeed 134 (or 139) mins.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/18/2016 07:22 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/18/2016 07:30 pm
Well, 'roughly' and 'ca.' sort of make the estimates in the blog post consistent with each other. Though I hope there's not quite that much uncertainty in the performance of the engine...
Well, between 134 and 139 mins, there is less than 4% difference. I've never worked with such big engine, but for smaller thrusters, that would be compatible with expected variability.
That's why there is an accelerometer....
But 147 minutes as the media kit indicates...?
It's actually explained on the blog:QuoteOne hundred and forty seven minutes after the programmed ignition time, Trace Gas Orbiter will reach 'MOI Timeout'.
That's the maximum burn time: after 147mins, the engine will be shut down even if the delta-V measured by the accelerometer has not reached the commanded value.
So the expected burn duration is indeed 134 (or 139) mins.
OK. Thank you. The problem here is that different releases from ESA are saying different things, and the media kit makes no mention of 147min being the max allowable burn time.
I will update the article accordingly.
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2016 06:22 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 09:30 am
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/exomars-duo-orbit-insertion-landing-mars/
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:02 pm
Quote
The #MainControlRoom in #ESOC is a hive of activity as the outgoing B-Team handover to the A-Team, who will monitor Mars arrival #ExoMars
Systems engineers Johannes B and Pierre C perform the ceremonial handover of the headset in the #MainControlRoom #ExoMars
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:03 pm
Quote
Melacom UHF radio on #MarsExpress is now powering on in preparation for tracking the #ExoMars @ESA_EDM landing later today
#MarsExpress displays light up to confirm Melacom radio switch on ready to listen to @ESA_EDM descent this afternoon #ExoMars
The #MarsExpress team are now checking out the health of the Melacom radio equipment as it warms up ahead of @ESA_EDM descent #ExoMars
The Melacom radio on #MarsExpress is currently a chilly -2.5 degrees C: check it out on the display: #ExoMars
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:24 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:35 pm
Quote
#ExoMars Flight Director Michel Denis now arriving on console: "Anything happening this afternoon?" he asks over the voice loop...
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 12:38 pm
.@ESA_TGO has begun to turn away from Earth to point its big main engine towards the direction of flight #ExoMars
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:40 pm
Post by: Semmel on 10/19/2016 12:43 pm
Control room is live at http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival now
All I see is a recording of the separation 3 days ago. Here is the closest live webcast I could find starting in about 20 minutes:
http://livestream.com/ESA/exomarssocialtv
The one you linked ( http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival ) starts in 3h... an hour after the landing is expected..
@edit: corrected time statement as shown below.
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/19/2016 12:47 pm
07:35 CEST: The ExoMars/TGO orbiter is in great shape and ready to swing into orbit around Mars, while the Schiaparelli lander is programmed to wake up at about 15:37 CEST for its landing demonstration mission. There is a cooperative international 'listening in' campaign ready to monitor signals from the landing module as it conducts the critical entry, descent and landing sequence today, leading to touch down and the start of surface science at about 16:48 CEST. The Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope in India will listen from Earth, while a fleet of NASA and ESA orbiters listen from Mars orbit. Read details via Listening to an alien landing. (http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/10/18/listening-to-an-alien-landing/)
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Live_updates_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 12:47 pm
Control room is live at http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival now
All I see is a recording of the separation 3 days ago. Here is the closest live webcast I could find starting in about 20 minutes:
http://livestream.com/ESA/exomarssocialtv
The one you linked ( http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival ) starts in 3h... the same time the landing is expected..
I'm so confused. Landing is at 14:47 GMT (10:47 EDT). That's 2hrs away, not three. So ESA's live stream isn't going to start until everything's over?
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:47 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:48 pm
Control room is live at http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival now
All I see is a recording of the separation 3 days ago. Here is the closest live webcast I could find starting in about 20 minutes:
http://livestream.com/ESA/exomarssocialtv
The one you linked ( http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival ) starts in 3h... the same time the landing is expected..
Sorry yes - correct.
http://livestream.com/ESA/exomarssocialtv - starts in 12 minutes in time for the insertion burn
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/19/2016 12:54 pm
Acquisition of @ESA_TGO beacon at @CanberraDSN! This simple carrier signal will be our only link to #ExoMars for the next few hours
DSS43 at http://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html
DOWN SIGNAL
SOURCE
TYPE
CARRIER
DATA RATE
23.36 kb/sec
FREQUENCY
8.41 GHz
POWER RECEIVED
-151.57 dBm
(6.97 x 10-22 kW)
Post by: Semmel on 10/19/2016 12:54 pm
Control room is live at http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival now
All I see is a recording of the separation 3 days ago. Here is the closest live webcast I could find starting in about 20 minutes:
http://livestream.com/ESA/exomarssocialtv
The one you linked ( http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival ) starts in 3h... the same time the landing is expected..
I'm so confused. Landing is at 14:47 GMT (10:47 EDT). That's 2hrs away, not three. So ESA's live stream isn't going to start until everything's over?
You are correct, my bad. I corrected my initial statement.
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 12:58 pm
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/788723533358694401
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:04 pm
Post by: Phillip Clark on 10/19/2016 01:06 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:07 pm
I am on http://livestream.com/ESA/exomarssocialtv but cannot see or hear anything "live". Just a static photo.
Starts at 13:09 GMT.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 01:10 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 01:12 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 01:13 pm
Post by: A12 on 10/19/2016 01:15 pm
Post by: Phillip Clark on 10/19/2016 01:15 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 01:15 pm
NOMINOL NOMINOL NOMINOL NOM NOM NOM :)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 01:21 pm
Post by: Phillip Clark on 10/19/2016 01:21 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:22 pm
Post by: A12 on 10/19/2016 01:24 pm
(Got the sound sorted - just in time for the live transmission to end. Doesn't look to be very professional.)Here the sound was ok for all transmission.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:25 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 01:25 pm
https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanSpaceAgency
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:27 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 01:27 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Watch_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 01:31 pm
Thanks to Geoff, this is a better landing page for the webcasts:I still like this link better, posted last page: http://livestream.com/ESA/exomarssocialtv
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Watch_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
same stream
Post by: mtakala24 on 10/19/2016 01:39 pm
Post by: orbitaldebris on 10/19/2016 01:40 pm
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/19/2016 01:41 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 01:42 pm
This is all over the place.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:42 pm
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/19/2016 01:43 pm
Remember: NOT hearing Schiaparelli from Indian telescope DOESN’T mean bad things for the mission. Signal meant to be heard by Mars orbiters, not on Earth.
Yup, The ESA man said the setups at the ground stations are more 'experimental' and we may not hear at all.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:43 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 01:43 pm
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/19/2016 01:43 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:47 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 01:48 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 01:50 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:50 pm
TGO Electra receiver starting recording EDM was mentioned on twitter. And then the tweet disappeared .. mysteriously around same time when some 'we are not allowed to ..' statement leaked over webcast static image. Mars conspiracy !!
LOL.
Someone at ESA hit the Twitter "post" button too quickly. That event not scheduled until 14:20 GMT
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 01:54 pm
Small overperformance on insertion burn being tracked
I assume TGO has real-time tracking/monitoring available to account for this, right?
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 01:55 pm
Inertial only, but yes, its closed loopSmall overperformance on insertion burn being tracked
I assume TGO has real-time tracking/monitoring available to account for this, right?
Also mentioned by https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/788725218151989248
Quote
The accelerometers on @ESA_TGO are now precisely calibrated ready for the #BigBurn of #ExoMars
Post by: as58 on 10/19/2016 01:55 pm
TGO Electra receiver starting recording EDM was mentioned on twitter. And then the tweet disappeared .. mysteriously around same time when some 'we are not allowed to ..' statement leaked over webcast static image. Mars conspiracy !!
LOL.
Someone at ESA hit the Twitter "post" button too quickly. That event not scheduled until 14:20 GMT
And people complain about unprofessional ESA webcasts. No, they've clearly created a well-scripted conspiracy drama that many take as true. Shades of Orson Welles' 'The War of the Worlds'.
Post by: inventodoc on 10/19/2016 01:55 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:00 pm
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 02:00 pm
Continued intermittent microphone activity on the esa livestream about how they are not allowed to be online until the scheduled time. Overall, the broadcast activities are low on the professionalism scale. If we view it as campy, I guess we can live with it.What do you expect from Facebook Social webcast? It's primarily intended for Facebook users, not general media.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 02:03 pm
#GMRT reports that @ESA_EDM signal is coming through "strong and clear" as it falls gently towards Mars #ExoMars
+~Twitter ESA operations
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:07 pm
#GMRT reports that @ESA_EDM signal is coming through "strong and clear" as it falls gently towards Mars #ExoMars
+~Twitter ESA operations
At this rate, #GMRT might be our first confirmation that Schiaparelli is on the ground -- if we can maintain signal lock through EDL ops. If we lose signal lock, we'll have to wait for either reacquisition of signal or the data dump from MArs Express just over 1hr after landing time.
Post by: fvandrog on 10/19/2016 02:08 pm
But they are going back and forth between the facebook event and a main webcast with that annoying lady who normally does the main events.
This is all over the place.
Well Chris, isn't this one for you then :)
(sorry for the off-topic post)
Edited because I quoted the wrong Chris
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:10 pm
And Schiaparelli should now be transmitting. Confirmation of that in 9mins 45secs.
Well Chris, isn't this one for you then :)
(sorry for the off-topic post)
Hmmm...... :D
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 02:18 pm
-- i think its unlikely its going to continue through landing ... but fingers crossed
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:20 pm
Post by: Journeyman on 10/19/2016 02:23 pm
Continued intermittent microphone activity on the esa livestream about how they are not allowed to be online until the scheduled time. Overall, the broadcast activities are low on the professionalism scale. If we view it as campy, I guess we can live with it.What do you expect from Facebook Social webcast? It's primarily intended for Facebook users, not general media.
I just wish ESA would follow JPLs example and show a live video feed from the control room and let us listen to the engineers commenting on the key milestones as they happen. Like they did for Curiosity EDL.
Then the people can feel the excitement too, not only listen to someone saying its exciting when asked by some interviewer.
We are witnessing space history LIVE, and ESA makes it seem boring! I guess they are not allowed to share the excitement from the mission control room.
At least show a live feed of the screen showing the radio Doppler plot and let us hear the chatter on the audio loop.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:24 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 02:25 pm
We are witnessing space history LIVE, and ESA makes it seem boring! I guess they are not allowed to share the excitement from the mission control room.Nah, i'm happy its not all in French or Dutch :)
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 02:26 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:28 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 02:36 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:42 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:45 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 02:45 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:46 pm
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/19/2016 02:46 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:47 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:48 pm
Post by: RonM on 10/19/2016 02:51 pm
I guess this is what we should be watching? Where is the stream?
The one thing I don't like about NSF live coverage, if you get to the party late you have no idea where the live streams are that are being reported on. However, everyone does a great job of posting updates.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:52 pm
Post by: Semmel on 10/19/2016 02:55 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 02:55 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 02:57 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 02:57 pm
#GMRT signal trace has jumped again, which should be the signature of @ESA_EDM parachute deployment #ExoMars
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 02:59 pm
#GMRT signal increase indicated @ESA_EDM is now on its main antenna, flying free from the parachute #ExoMars
Post by: inventodoc on 10/19/2016 03:01 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 03:02 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 03:04 pm
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/19/2016 03:04 pm
LISTENING TO AN ALIEN LANDING
Most importantly, no one single part of the listening support matrix not working is an indication that all is lost – only with all of them will we have the complete picture. In summary, here are the steps:
Real-time: Experimental tracking by the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope in Pune, India. We hope to catch the very faint signal all the way from Mars on Earth
1.5 hours after landing: Recording of the Schiaparelli signal from Mars Express will be available, giving a detailed close-up view of the event
Two hours after landing: Results of the first nominal communication pass over Schiaparelli after landing that was performed by NASA/JPL's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will be available at ESOC
20 October: Detailed data recording of the telemetry from descent will be available from TGO
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/10/18/listening-to-an-alien-landing/
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 03:05 pm
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/19/2016 03:06 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 03:06 pm
Landing on Mars is hard. ..Damn, lets hope its still a soft landing with loss of signal, not hard landing
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 03:06 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 03:08 pm
Post by: inventodoc on 10/19/2016 03:08 pm
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 03:08 pm
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/19/2016 03:09 pm
And mine. This waiting is <grr>.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 03:09 pm
TGO burn has about 15mins left for nominal 139min burn time.
I still wonder whether it's theoretically in orbit
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 03:11 pm
there will be a chance to get telemetry from orbiters later, though the fact that they had acquisition of signal in a late phase of descent does not portend well for the landing...Remember, signal strength was low to begin with. This could be indicative that we're right on the edge of the antenna of the spacecraft. It's the same problem that the STEREO team has with STEREO-B, comms are on the edge of the LGAs. Attitude change when switching over to powered descent could have taken us out of alignment with the lander antenna.
Post by: inventodoc on 10/19/2016 03:11 pm
High above @ESA_EDM, #MarsExpress has finished listening to the Schiaparelli, ready to relay the recording to Earth #ExoMars
Post by: Semmel on 10/19/2016 03:12 pm
Post by: inventodoc on 10/19/2016 03:13 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 03:13 pm
Post by: notsorandom on 10/19/2016 03:13 pm
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/19/2016 03:14 pm
I would be very happy to be proven wrong.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 03:14 pm
declaration at mission control that they had signal all the way down to just before landing, then it ended. Not looking good....
And they said, they are not jumping to conclusions. This was an experimental tracking. They will wait until relay satellites can transmit data before making any "good" or "not good" determination.
Post by: eeergo on 10/19/2016 03:16 pm
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/19/2016 03:16 pm
declaration at mission control that they had signal all the way down to just before landing, then it ended. Not looking good....Unless, as pointed out up-thread, the landing took the lander's antenna off-beam from the experimental direct link to Earth.
I >think< at this point, we have to wait for the telemetry playback from Mars Express, or the following opportunity via MRO.
And after the interview of the exobiologist who prefers to be referred to as astrobiologist, this web cast is over. On a cliffhanger.
EDIT for clarity
Post by: inventodoc on 10/19/2016 03:16 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/19/2016 03:17 pm
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/19/2016 03:17 pm
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/19/2016 03:18 pm
The UHF beam, by design, is *very* non-directional, as it has to communicate with orbiters going overhead from horizon to horizon.declaration at mission control that they had signal all the way down to just before landing, then it ended. Not looking good....Unless, as pointed out up-thread, the landing took the lander's antenna off-beam from the experimental direct link to Earth.
Thinking the Earth just went out of the beam is wishful thinking, in my opinion.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 03:19 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 03:23 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/19/2016 03:24 pm
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 10/19/2016 03:24 pm
Post by: WBailey on 10/19/2016 03:31 pm
Let's hope the signal from Schiaparelli is acquired. Goes w/o saying that landing on Mars, successfully, isn't easy. Also puts into perspective the achievement of the Viking team more than 40 years ago.
Don't forget Mars 3, even if its science objectives weren't accomplished.
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/19/2016 03:34 pm
Post by: Skamp_X on 10/19/2016 03:37 pm
Still hoping for a signal from one of the orbiters in the next couple of hours...
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/19/2016 03:37 pm
#MarsExpress team waiting for acquisition of signals at 1740CEST via #Cebreros station - followed by download of recorded @ESA_EDM beacon
#MarsExpress should now have completed its turn, pointing its 1.8m high gain antenna directly at Earth #ExoMars
At Mars #MarsExpress is now powering up its main transmitter ready to beam the @ESA_EDM landing recording back to Earth #ExoMars
#MarsExpress was recording carrier only like #GMRT, @ESA_TGO was recording telemetry #ExoMars
Still hidden behind Mars, @ESA_TGO should have reached "MOI Timeout" - trigger to automatically reconfigure for talking to Earth #ExoMars
First step for @ESA_TGO is to isolate the big main engine, closing off the safety valves from the propellant and oxidiser tanks #ExoMars
@ESA_TGO will now begin turning back into normal cruise attitude - the optimal orientation for communicating with Earth #ExoMars
At this point, the big 2.2m high gain antenna on @ESA_TGO will be unlocked and turned to point at Earth #ExoMars
Finally, the solar arrays on @ESA_TGO will be unlocked, allowing them to once more track the sun and recharge the batteries #ExoMars
Post by: WBailey on 10/19/2016 03:41 pm
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/19/2016 03:49 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 03:55 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 03:55 pm
The @ESA_EDM landing recording from #MarsExpress has started arriving on Earth, #ESOC teams report seeing
Engineer @marwood82 report to #FlightDirector: size of @ESA_EDM recording on-board #MarsExpress is consistent with expected size #ExoMars
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 03:57 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 03:59 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 04:01 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 04:02 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 04:15 pm
#MarsExpress team now processing @ESA_EDM landing recording to extract the trace of the lander's signal as it descended to Mars #ExoMars
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 04:24 pm
Post by: CeeJayDugan on 10/19/2016 04:28 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 04:30 pm
How bad is the dust storms near the expected landing area? Haven't heard much...could that be a factor?
According to my understanding, dust storms could change density of the atmosphere and this would lead to problems concerning parachute deployment etc... dust storms, however, are not powerful enough (atmosphere is thin) to overturn a lander. If there's no lander engine failure, other scenarios that are more likely are rocks and craters.
Post by: eeergo on 10/19/2016 04:33 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/19/2016 04:35 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 04:37 pm
#FlightDirector Michel Denis - very likely @ESA has two satellites around Mars! #ExoMars
Post by: Xentry on 10/19/2016 04:39 pm
Indications provided by ESA Operations during EDL appears to have tracked the lander at least all the way to parachute release and powered descent initiation. Many things need to have worked well by then, including good radioaltimeter data.How bad is the dust storms near the expected landing area? Haven't heard much...could that be a factor?
According to my understanding, dust storms could change density of the atmosphere and this would lead to problems concerning parachute deployment etc... dust storms, however, are not powerful enough (atmosphere is thin) to overturn a lander. If there's no lander engine failure, other scenarios that are more likely are rocks and craters.
The landing area is also among the least dangerous places on Mars - flat and almost without rocks or craters.
Therefore it's hard to even formulate a likely failure scenario without having more data than we have right now. Let's hope MRO will kindly provide that additional data within the hour.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 04:40 pm
Post by: tjchambers on 10/19/2016 04:41 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 04:44 pm
Initial reports from @ESA_TGO telemetry are that it performed exactly as expected during the #BigBurn #ExoMars
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 04:47 pm
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 10/19/2016 04:48 pm
I am really sorry to hear that Schiaparelli did not survive the landing. I still hope the orbiter was captured by Mars.Where did you hear that?
AFAIK we are still in the insufficient data-phase.
registered 15 minutes ago, one posting, and it looks like fake...
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 04:48 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 04:51 pm
Post by: orbitaldebris on 10/19/2016 04:57 pm
Post by: notsorandom on 10/19/2016 04:57 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/19/2016 05:11 pm
"There is still no word on the fate of the European Space Agency's Mars lander, Schiaparelli.
The robot was supposed to have touched down on the Red Planet at 1458 GMT (1558 BST), but radio contact was lost in the minute before this time.
It was hoped that a satellite at Mars might have tracked the full descent, but it was unable to add any further insight.
This will likely stoke fears that Schiaparelli has been lost."
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37707776
They have the same info we do for now.
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/19/2016 05:15 pm
Next opportunity to hear from @ESA_EDM will be the relay pass with @NASAJPL's MRO spacecraft - should come in the next hour or two #ExoMars
Post by: Anabasis on 10/19/2016 05:16 pm
Nicolas Wöhrl @Icewalker1974 16 Min
There are actually some rumors behind the scenes that the landing was not soft and Schiaparelli did not make it. #ExoMars (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ExoMars?src=hash)
https://twitter.com/Icewalker1974/status/788786615711834112 (https://twitter.com/Icewalker1974/status/788786615711834112)
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 05:16 pm
Next opportunity to hear from @ESA_EDM will be the relay pass with @NASAJPL's MRO spacecraft - should come in the next hour or two #ExoMars
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 05:29 pm
News reel on Russia Today says it landed successfully on Mars. Either they know more than we do, or they are jumping the gun.
As an owner of Bulgarian news site, this is what I noticed - people were initially disappointed that there's no signal from Schiaparelli, then jumped in joy when ESA announced that TGO is fine. In fact, they confused TGO with Schiaparelli and wrongly interpreted it as successful landing
Post by: Phillip Clark on 10/19/2016 05:40 pm
Post by: sdsds on 10/19/2016 05:41 pm
Post by: redliox on 10/19/2016 05:46 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 05:46 pm
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/19/2016 05:48 pm
Don't let the lander possible (not confirmed) failure overshadow the apparent orbiter success. Science-wise it's the orbiter that is important, to see if there are finally trace gases related to life. There's almost no scientific loss if the lander is lost.
Indeed it's a bit of a shame all the focus is on the lander, as with Rosetta the most science lies in the orbiter.
It wouldn't be great for Exomars 2020 though, which is seeking full funding in December.
Post by: eeergo on 10/19/2016 05:50 pm
Don't let the lander possible (not confirmed) failure overshadow the apparent orbiter success. Science-wise it's the orbiter that is important, to see if there are finally trace gases related to life. There's almost no scientific loss if the lander is lost.
Certainly, but let's not understate the fact that the riskier and less proven phase of EDL for ESA (propulsive landing) for the upcoming ExoMars rover might have failed, if EDM indeed crashed during that phase. This might have large implications for the future mission.
Furthermore, up until Schiaparelli separation, the flight profile was an adaptation of Huygens', which succeeded in a much more unknown environment, so there was not so much uncertainty there.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 06:11 pm
Don't let the lander possible (not confirmed) failure overshadow the apparent orbiter success. Science-wise it's the orbiter that is important, to see if there are finally trace gases related to life. There's almost no scientific loss if the lander is lost.Certainly, but let's not understate the fact that the riskier and less proven phase of EDL for ESA (propulsive landing) for the upcoming ExoMars rover might have failed, if EDM indeed crashed during that phase. This might have large implications for the future mission.
I understand. That's right.
My point of view is a little different. Some of us would just be happy with an orbiter. It's so long awaited. Bulgarian team flew an instrument (dosimeter) on Mars 96. It failed. Tried again on Phobos-Grunt. Failed again. Now trying on ExoMars for a third time, as the instrument (Lulin-MO) is now part of the FREND suit.
I guess that Russian coleagues feel the same. I've read interviews with Oleg Korablev. He has gone through so many failures... These people waited to have an orbiter for so, so long. Now they have that chane. ACS spectrometer is based on similar instruments they had on Mars 96 and Phobos-Grunt too...
So, if ExoMars is in orbit (it appears so according to preliminary data, just waiting for final confirmation), it would be a joy. At long last - an orbiter. A beautiful orbiter.
Let's hope this one will last for many more months and years than Phobos and Mars 5 lasted.
Post by: docmordrid on 10/19/2016 06:15 pm
ESA ops center (3) 30 mins ago: Even if MRO doesn't confirm Schiaparelli life on Mars surface, wait for our TGO data tomorrow. (a pattern?)
2:05 PM - 19 Oct 2016
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 06:25 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Watch_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 06:28 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 06:28 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 06:31 pm
TGO is in a nominal orbit!
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 06:31 pm
Post by: notsorandom on 10/19/2016 06:35 pm
Post by: Khadgars on 10/19/2016 06:39 pm
Don't let the lander possible (not confirmed) failure overshadow the apparent orbiter success. Science-wise it's the orbiter that is important, to see if there are finally trace gases related to life. There's almost no scientific loss if the lander is lost.
But the orbiter was the easier part and really shouldn't be an issue. It's the lander that has a knock on effect to ExoMars2020, which if it failed could have a significant impact on that upcoming mission.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 06:39 pm
Post by: saundby on 10/19/2016 06:40 pm
Report tomorrow morning at the news conference. About 16 hours to wait on news about the lander.
Excellent news on the orbiter in the meanwhile!
Post by: lcs on 10/19/2016 06:41 pm
Mars express also saw the carrier signal end before the expected landing time.
So would the 20 MB of stored telemetry in principle contain enough info to determine why the thrusters did not fire, assuming that is the reason for the early termination of carrier?
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 06:43 pm
Not telemetry. Just the carrier signal which in itself doesn't contain any data. Think of it as a single tone similar to that on a phone line. TGO recorded the actual telemetry. MEX just recorded the same thing that GMRT received on the ground.Mars express also saw the carrier signal end before the expected landing time.
So would the 20 MB of stored telemetry in principle contain enough info to determine why the thrusters did not fire, assuming that is the reason for the early termination of carrier?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2016 06:45 pm
MRO is currently downlinking data through DSS-55 at Madrid. Data rate is 3 Mb/s.
Post by: Blackstar on 10/19/2016 06:47 pm
Don't let the lander possible (not confirmed) failure overshadow the apparent orbiter success. Science-wise it's the orbiter that is important, to see if there are finally trace gases related to life. There's almost no scientific loss if the lander is lost.
But the orbiter was the easier part and really shouldn't be an issue. It's the lander that has a knock on effect to ExoMars2020, which if it failed could have a significant impact on that upcoming mission.
Yes. TGO is scientifically valuable, Schiaparelli was valuable from an engineering standpoint. That said, aren't the Russians developing the ExoMars2020 lander? So even if Schiaparelli was successful, I don't know how important that engineering data would be for a more complicated lander built by another country. There's still a steep learning curve no matter what.
Post by: redliox on 10/19/2016 06:50 pm
Yes. TGO is scientifically valuable, Schiaparelli was valuable from an engineering standpoint. That said, aren't the Russians developing the ExoMars2020 lander? So even if Schiaparelli was successful, I don't know how important that engineering data would be for a more complicated lander built by another country. There's still a steep learning curve no matter what.
I wondered that myself. So the Russians' true contribution to the mission are the launcher and a few instruments with little to do with Shapy'.
Post by: Khadgars on 10/19/2016 06:51 pm
Don't let the lander possible (not confirmed) failure overshadow the apparent orbiter success. Science-wise it's the orbiter that is important, to see if there are finally trace gases related to life. There's almost no scientific loss if the lander is lost.
But the orbiter was the easier part and really shouldn't be an issue. It's the lander that has a knock on effect to ExoMars2020, which if it failed could have a significant impact on that upcoming mission.
Yes. TGO is scientifically valuable, Schiaparelli was valuable from an engineering standpoint. That said, aren't the Russians developing the ExoMars2020 lander? So even if Schiaparelli was successful, I don't know how important that engineering data would be for a more complicated lander built by another country. There's still a steep learning curve no matter what.
Excellent point. That begs the question then, what was the purpose of Schiaparelli if it has little bearing on ExoMars 2020?
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 06:52 pm
That said, aren't the Russians developing the ExoMars2020 lander?No
Post by: notsorandom on 10/19/2016 06:52 pm
They said on the webcast that TGO got about 20mb of telemetry. Hopefully that contains enough information to tell the whole story regardless if it has a good ending or not. Anyone know why MEX couldn't record telemetry as well? Was it an issue of the geometry of hardware?Not telemetry. Just the carrier signal which in itself doesn't contain any data. Think of it as a single tone similar to that on a phone line. TGO recorded the actual telemetry. MEX just recorded the same thing that GMRT received on the ground.Mars express also saw the carrier signal end before the expected landing time.
So would the 20 MB of stored telemetry in principle contain enough info to determine why the thrusters did not fire, assuming that is the reason for the early termination of carrier?
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/19/2016 06:52 pm
Don't let the lander possible (not confirmed) failure overshadow the apparent orbiter success. Science-wise it's the orbiter that is important, to see if there are finally trace gases related to life. There's almost no scientific loss if the lander is lost.
But the orbiter was the easier part and really shouldn't be an issue. It's the lander that has a knock on effect to ExoMars2020, which if it failed could have a significant impact on that upcoming mission.
Yes. TGO is scientifically valuable, Schiaparelli was valuable from an engineering standpoint. That said, aren't the Russians developing the ExoMars2020 lander? So even if Schiaparelli was successful, I don't know how important that engineering data would be for a more complicated lander built by another country. There's still a steep learning curve no matter what.
While the actual landing platform is being built in Russia, pretty much all the critical descent subsystems are being provided by ESA.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 07:19 pm
We shoud wait for tomorrow to hear more about the mission
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/with_replies
Post by: plutogno on 10/19/2016 07:27 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 07:40 pm
Quote
Paolo Ferri(4): We're still waiting for MRO data from NASA JPL. Maybe they have none; we're waiting. Honestly said: Not a good sign.
Post by: jacqmans on 10/19/2016 07:42 pm
N°35-2016
Paris, 19 October 2016
ExoMars TGO reaches Mars orbit while EDM situation under assessment
The Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) of ESA's ExoMars 2016 has successfully performed the long 139-minute burn required to be captured by Mars and entered an elliptical orbit around the Red Planet, while contact has not yet
been confirmed with the mission's test lander from the surface.
TGO's Mars orbit Insertion burn lasted from 13:05 to 15:24 GMT on 19 October, reducing the spacecraft's speed and direction by more than 1.5 km/s. The TGO is now on its planned orbit around Mars. European Space Agency
teams at the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany, continue to monitor the good health of their second orbiter around Mars, which joins the 13-year old Mars Express.
The ESOC teams are trying to confirm contact with the Entry, Descent & Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM), Schiaparelli, which entered the Martian atmosphere some 107 minutes after TGO started its own orbit insertion
manoeuvre.
The 577-kg EDM was released by the TGO at 14:42 GMT on 16 October. Schiaparelli was programmed to autonomously perform an automated landing sequence, with parachute deployment and front heat shield release between
11 and 7 km, followed by a retrorocket braking starting at 1100 m from the ground, and a final fall from a height of 2 m protected by a crushable structure.
Prior to atmospheric entry at 14:42 GMT, contact via the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), the world's largest interferometric array, located near Pune, India, was established just after it began transmitting
a beacon signal 75 minutes before reaching the upper layers of the Martian atmosphere. However, the signal was lost some time prior to landing.
A series of windows have been programmed to listen for signals coming from the lander via ESA'S Mars Express and NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) and Mars Atmosphere & Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) probes. The
Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) also has listening slots.
If Schiaparelli reached the surface safely, its batteries should be able to support operations for three to ten days, offering multiple opportunities to re-establish a communication link.
TGO is equipped with a suite of science instruments in order to study the Martian environment from orbit. Although mostly a technology demonstrator, Schiaparelli is also carrying a small science payload to perform
some observations from ground.
ExoMars 2016 is the first part of a two-fold international endeavour conducted by ESA in cooperation with Roskosmos in Russia that will also encompass the ExoMars 2020 mission. Due in 2020, the second ExoMars mission
will include a Russian lander and a European rover, which will drill down to 2 m underground to look for pristine organic material.
Media are invited to a briefing tomorrow at 10:00 CEST at ESA Operations Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany. The media briefing will be streamed live on esa.int
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 07:44 pm
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 07:48 pm
Let's not forget we should check for Opportunity photos. With better luck it could have photographed Schiaparelli.Even if it did, the lander would only be 2 pixels across in the images. Not going to help.
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 07:49 pm
Post by: asmi on 10/19/2016 07:49 pm
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 07:55 pm
Didn't we have similar delays and uncertainty during separation? That seems to be ESA's modus operandi. Let's just wait for something definitive.If you're suggesting that ESA is deliberately delaying landing confirmation, then you're wrong. They have plainly stated there's no data beyond the parachute deploy indications. Both the GMRT and MEX recordings cuts off at the same point, but this is just the carrier signal. MRO was to communicate with the lander after touchdown so this was the first full telemetry opportunity post-landing. TGO recorded the entire descent in telemetry format. But that has to wait until all the MOI data has been downlinked.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 10/19/2016 08:00 pm
Even if it did, the lander would only be 2 pixels across in the images. Not going to help."
It would help if it indicated successful parachute deployment, for instance. One more data point. I still think it unlikely Opportunity will see anything.
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 08:02 pm
"Let's not forget we should check for Opportunity photos. With better luck it could have photographed Schiaparelli.You can't resolve any details in just two pixels. That's incredibly tiny. It's the computer graphics equivalent of micro-meters.
Even if it did, the lander would only be 2 pixels across in the images. Not going to help."
It would help if it indicated successful parachute deployment, for instance. One more data point. I still think it unlikely Opportunity will see anything.
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/19/2016 08:03 pm
I'll answer with two questions: Any Opportunity imagery could be used to determine or confirm a descent trajectory? And with that trajectory, the search parameters for a landing/crash site would be better confined?Let's not forget we should check for Opportunity photos. With better luck it could have photographed Schiaparelli.Even if it did, the lander would only be 2 pixels across in the images. Not going to help.
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 08:08 pm
No to both questions. Opportunity just can't resolve an object that's several hundred km distant. It is for close surface objects only.I'll answer with two questions: Any Opportunity imagery could be used to determine or confirm a descent trajectory? And with that trajectory, the search parameters for a landing/crash site would be better confined?Let's not forget we should check for Opportunity photos. With better luck it could have photographed Schiaparelli.Even if it did, the lander would only be 2 pixels across in the images. Not going to help.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 10/19/2016 08:08 pm
You don't need to resolve it. Knowing the time and getting the position tells you a lot about the trajectory including whether it's on the parachute or not. One more data point is NEVER useless.
Post by: asmi on 10/19/2016 08:24 pm
If you're suggesting that ESA is deliberately delaying landing confirmation, then you're wrong. They have plainly stated there's no data beyond the parachute deploy indications. Both the GMRT and MEX recordings cuts off at the same point, but this is just the carrier signal. MRO was to communicate with the lander after touchdown so this was the first full telemetry opportunity post-landing. TGO recorded the entire descent in telemetry format. But that has to wait until all the MOI data has been downlinked.No what I'm suggesting is this - every governmental agency in any country is a bureaucracy. ESA is intergovernmental agency, so it's bureaucracy squared. Which means any finding made by the "grunts" (no disrespect implied here, quite the opposite - I have huge respect for folks actually doing stuff) will have to made it up through countless levels of managers before it's out in public.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/19/2016 08:59 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/19/2016 10:42 pm
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2016/10191525-brief-update-opportunitys.html
Post by: atomic on 10/19/2016 10:49 pm
Looks like a lander with parachute to me. ???
Edit: It is probably nothing. Just imagination.
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/19/2016 11:46 pm
What do you guys think?
Looks like a lander with parachute to me. ???
Edit: It is probably nothing. Just imagination.
I think that is sadly a dead sensor or dust on the lens, as it appears in the same place in most all of the other pictures :( It REALLY does look like a parachute in your edit, though.
Post by: DaveS on 10/19/2016 11:51 pm
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 10/19/2016 11:59 pm
1)....SIGNAL DETECTION!! #GMRT detects @ESA_EDM signal after plasma blackout, final moments of descent coming #ExoMars
I understand that this means that the lander survived the Entry portion of its EDL at least enough to send some sort of heartbeat signal...?.
2)....GMRT signal trace has jumped again, which should be the signature of @ESA_EDM parachute deployment #ExoMars
I understand this means that some sort of indication was received that the parachute deployment sequence started, but does NOT mean the parachute deployed completely successfully...or did not shred...???
3)...#GMRT signal increase indicated @ESA_EDM is now on its main antenna, flying free from the parachute #
I understand that this means that the lander heatshield has separated, the backshell has separated and that the lander is free falling ???
We also know that Oppportunry did not see any sign of the lander during its decent..although that was a long shot...
Is that it ??
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 12:06 am
Is that it ??
There is Mars Express data too, which recorded carrier but no telemetry. Timing of signal loss matches GMRT
Post by: DaveS on 10/20/2016 12:09 am
I'm trying to summarize what we know of the EDL events that were noted in postings in this thread...Pretty much. The signal received by the GMRT (Giant Metre-wave Radio Telescope) was a faint carrier tone which carried no data. All that it was good for was basic aliveness indication as well as Doppler effect analysis (acceleration and deceleration).
1)....SIGNAL DETECTION!! #GMRT detects @ESA_EDM signal after plasma blackout, final moments of descent coming #ExoMars
I understand that this means that the lander survived the Entry portion of its EDL at least enough to send some sort of heartbeat signal...?.
2)....GMRT signal trace has jumped again, which should be the signature of @ESA_EDM parachute deployment #ExoMars
I understand this means that some sort of indication was received that the parachute deployment sequence started, but does NOT mean the parachute deployed completely successfully...or did not shred...???
3)...#GMRT signal increase indicated @ESA_EDM is now on its main antenna, flying free from the parachute #
I understand that this means that the lander heatshield has separated, the backshell has separated and that the lander is free falling ???
We also know that Oppportunry did not see any sign of the lander during its decent..although that was a long shot...
Is that it ??
Post by: DaveS on 10/20/2016 12:11 am
It recorded the same carrier signal as the GMRT, just from a different angle which means better signal strength.Is that it ??
There is Mars Express data too, which recorded carrier but no telemetry. Timing of signal loss matches GMRT
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 12:16 am
Yeah, but both recordings cutting off at the same time seems to reduce the likelihood of a scenario where GMRT would have lost marginally working link because of craft/antenna orientation change or some other interference. More likely than not, transmission stopped at that momentIt recorded the same carrier signal as the GMRT, just from a different angle which means better signal strength.Is that it ??
There is Mars Express data too, which recorded carrier but no telemetry. Timing of signal loss matches GMRT
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 10/20/2016 12:24 am
Post by: DaveS on 10/20/2016 12:30 am
..and so...we have the lander free falling ...what would be the next Step in the landing sequence that would generate a tone ???..landing zone pictures....???.engine ignition ??...something else ??The carrier signal is continuous, it isn't generated by any onboard events. Think of it as a single tone similar to that on a phone line.
Post by: Lumina on 10/20/2016 01:36 am
I'm curious as to when the signal ends, if it is coincident with the ignition of the landing thrusters. Maybe one of them failed and caused a loss of control.
If I had to bet, that would be my theory also. The fact that LOS occurred at the same time for receiving stations on Earth and in Mars orbit points more to LOM than LOS. If we are indeed looking at LOM at some point between freefall and a soft landing, then my guess is that something didn't work as planned during the high-risk ignition of the landing thrusters. So my best guess is that the destabilized lander took a tumble from 1km up...
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 03:49 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-space-mars-idUSKCN12I2SP
Quote
Schiaparelli, which is testing technologies for a rover due to follow in 2020, represents only the second European attempt to land a craft on the Red Planet.
A Schiaparelli crash could impact plans for the 2020 rover, though that mission is now using a different type of landing system, ESA scientist Olivier Witasse said during a webcast press conference at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Pasadena, California.
“The design of the system has changed over the last few years ... We will not reuse all the technology from Schiaparelli, so it will impact, but not dramatically, if there is a failure with Schiaparelli,” Witasse said.
Press briefing at 10AM CEST should have some new info, four hours from now. 8AM GMT, 1AM PST
EDIT: In case you are in the neighbourhood to help with the search, here is a nice picture of an engineering model (https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1019/825140-mars-robot-probe/) credited as "A model of the test module -Schiaparelli - stands in a conference room of the European Space Agency (ESA) in Darmstadt"
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/20/2016 05:15 am
Unfortunately, it looks like the Great Galactic Ghoul has struck once again with EDM. The bad news is that there was a loss of signal before touchdown and no contact since then (although there is still a small, but fading, chance that everything went well and communications are re-established). The good news is that there was a signal to measure, unlike with Beagle 2 which was purposely left silent all the way down. That signal allows the engineers to tell when the problem occurred when the signal died. From the signal the amount of Doppler frequency shift can be measured. From this can be measured the velocity relative to Mars, after subtracting for the motion of Mars relative to Earth and Mars relative to Mars Express and TGO. From that velocity can be worked out acceleration and height above Mars. All useful information for working out if the problem was with the parachutes, landing thrusters or some other part of the lander.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 05:25 am
From the signal the amount of Doppler frequency shift can be measured. From this can be measured the velocity relative to Mars, after subtracting for the motion of Mars relative to Earth and Mars relative to Mars Express and TGO. From that velocity can be worked out acceleration and height above Mars. All useful information for working out if the problem was with the parachutes, landing thrusters or some other part of the lander.Well the situation should be quite a bit better than that, as TGO should have captured and downlinked the entire EDL time-stamped telemetry stream, so full reconstruction of the sequence up until signal loss should be possible.
We should presumably have first view of this in next few hours
EDIT: minus the data during plasma blackout of course, which was to be buffered onboard and replayed later from surface
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/20/2016 06:20 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 07:52 am
Crossing fingers for some good news
EDIT: and we are on
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:01 am
Jan Worner, David Parker, Rolf Densing, Andrea Accomazzo, DonMcCoy on panel
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:03 am
EDM sensor data , aka telemetry was received by TGO , data is there. Anaysis coming shortly.
Post by: jacqmans on 10/20/2016 08:05 am
Post by: sdsds on 10/20/2016 08:07 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:08 am
Parachute flight went nominally up to a point. Parachute release moment data doesnt match expectations
After that, data is unexpected
EDIT: Work on further data analaysis and reconstruction will continue. All needed telemetry data is there
Post by: jacqmans on 10/20/2016 08:09 am
Post by: Moskit on 10/20/2016 08:10 am
Landing is considered a test and TGO received test data (telemetry) which is success.
Given how many "news" media reported yesterday that 'Schiaparelli has landed' this is obviously targeted at clearing these misconceptions.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:13 am
Q: ( no burning man ) BBC news, how likely was this a crash landing ?
A: i dont understand the question. We have TGO and also the test, the landing test is there to acquire data and knowledge. The final landing is not confirmed, thats true, but we have TGO, we acquired the needed engineering data.
We are happy ( and obviously frustrated ) . Big success
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:14 am
A: This mission is a success, we have function ( relay ) for 2020 .
Post by: orbitaldebris on 10/20/2016 08:15 am
Answer: "I don't understand the question"
Really? Stop with this forced optimism when we just want to hear facts. Typical evasive ESA press conference yet again.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:15 am
A: we dont know, we have data. Difficult to guess. Data needs processing. We are not in the position to determine if the landing may have been called soft
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:16 am
Question: "How likely is it that the lander crashed?"They just stated the facts, clearly, shortly, concisely. Not their fault that its not getting through
Answer: "I don't understand the question"
Really? Stop with this forced optimism when we just want to hear facts. Typical evasive ESA press conference yet again.
Post by: sdsds on 10/20/2016 08:18 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:18 am
A: TGO is not listening any further data. MRO has two more overflights, but there is no RF signal being detected. Keep monitoring with Puna and MRO but so far no signals
Post by: sdsds on 10/20/2016 08:19 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:20 am
A: yes, for a few seconds. Shorter than expected, dont know if firing was nominal. Know soon after data has been processed
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:21 am
A: yes, radar was activated and providing data
Post by: Star One on 10/20/2016 08:22 am
Question: "How likely is it that the lander crashed?"They just stated the facts, clearly, shortly, concisely. Not their fault that its not getting through
Answer: "I don't understand the question"
Really? Stop with this forced optimism when we just want to hear facts. Typical evasive ESA press conference yet again.
Problem is it makes them look evasive.
Post by: jacqmans on 10/20/2016 08:22 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:23 am
A: Likelihood for getting a picture is difficult, pics will be taken, but not sure if possible
Post by: sdsds on 10/20/2016 08:24 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:25 am
Q: is there ground contact sensor ?
A: not specifically, but accelerometers would tell us
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:26 am
A: possibility, yes, not excluded
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:29 am
A: Can reset transceiver, possibilities to trigger reset computers. first would be transceiver reset attempt. Orbiter hails will be tried on pre-planned sequences.
Limited battery power, 4 sols up to 10 sols max
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:31 am
A: Indeed, stored data from EDM .. is a copy of TGO, but at higher quality (like higher sampling rate probably) . Some loss but not major
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:32 am
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:34 am
Informed questions, detailed answers, very focused. No overcommitments or handwaves. Nothing about anyones electric buses, burning man or space toilet either.
Thanks ESA
Post by: Oli on 10/20/2016 08:35 am
Data from EDM until approx. 50 seconds before time of expected landing.
What events could cause this?
I doubt it landed/crashed 50 seconds too early.
Post by: sdsds on 10/20/2016 08:35 am
Post by: sdsds on 10/20/2016 08:36 am
Data from EDM until approx. 50 seconds before time of expected landing.
What events could cause this?
I doubt it landed/crashed 50 seconds too early.
I think it relates the the comment about the retrorockets firing for an unexpectedly short duration.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:38 am
Data from EDM until approx. 50 seconds before time of expected landing.
What events could cause this?
I doubt it landed/crashed 50 seconds too early.
There is a possibility that it was plummeting faster than expected - question was asked about simulation+onboard data not agreeing with the observed doppler. It's possible it reached ground a tad sooner than anyone thought.
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/20/2016 08:40 am
That was informative and clear, Q/A and presser over.
Informed questions, detailed answers, very focused. No overcommitments or handwaves. Nothing about anyones electric buses, burning man or space toilet either.
Thanks ESA
Yes very good, great to see hard informed questioning.
Judging by what was said; the approx. ~50s gap between LOS and projected landing, as well as the fact they had already seen the thrusters fire for ~4s before LOS, does seem to suggest an early end to the parachute phase based on the nominal timeline ESA provided.
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/47852-entry-descent-and-landing-demonstrator-module/
Or alternatively the ground was closer than expected...
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/20/2016 08:40 am
Post by: Moskit on 10/20/2016 08:44 am
A: it is possible lander was too high, or too low (higher/lower than expected?)
This was an interesting question and answer - I expected faul-tree-like description of thruster failure etc, while the answer was in a completely different direction.
Post by: eeergo on 10/20/2016 08:46 am
Data from EDM until approx. 50 seconds before time of expected landing.
What events could cause this?
I doubt it landed/crashed 50 seconds too early.
There is a possibility that it was plummeting faster than expected - question was asked about simulation+onboard data not agreeing with the observed doppler. It's possible it reached ground a tad sooner than anyone thought.
From the fact that they mentioned an unexpected signature from the chute (I'm basing this on the reporting from a few pages ago, I couldn't actually listen in to the talk), it could be that the parachute malfunctioned? This could have caused a larger velocity at lower altitude, so the separation/propulsive phase would have taken place earlier and have had a much shorter duration.
If this is the case, for Schiaparelli to have survived, its engines would have had to brake much steeply than planned, which might or might not have been possible. However, if the fault was just due to the parachute, in my opinion it would be the best possible failure scenario, since this design was already used by Huygens and modifications can be more easily tested on Earth.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:49 am
From the fact that they mentioned an unexpected signature from the chute (I'm basing this on the reporting from a few pages ago, I couldn't actually listen in to the talk), it could be that the parachute malfunctioned?I was guessing a ripped or damaged parachute too. It would probably do enough to throw the rest of the sequence into disarray. Pure guessing though
Post by: plutogno on 10/20/2016 08:52 am
From the fact that they mentioned an unexpected signature from the chute (I'm basing this on the reporting from a few pages ago, I couldn't actually listen in to the talk), it could be that the parachute malfunctioned? This could have caused a larger velocity at lower altitude
I guess we will know once the analysis of telemetry and Doppler shift is complete.
Post by: eeergo on 10/20/2016 08:59 am
From the fact that they mentioned an unexpected signature from the chute (I'm basing this on the reporting from a few pages ago, I couldn't actually listen in to the talk), it could be that the parachute malfunctioned?I was guessing a ripped or damaged parachute too. It would probably do enough to throw the rest of the sequence into disarray. Pure guessing though
I agree, hopefully they can give a full picture of the telemetry analysis soon. Did they mention when the full data from EDL is expected to be received?
Thanks for the nice reporting by the way, I'm chairing a collaboration meeting and can't be messing around with live feeds too much :)
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/20/2016 09:11 am
From the fact that they mentioned an unexpected signature from the chute (I'm basing this on the reporting from a few pages ago, I couldn't actually listen in to the talk), it could be that the parachute malfunctioned?I was guessing a ripped or damaged parachute too. It would probably do enough to throw the rest of the sequence into disarray. Pure guessing though
I agree, hopefully they can give a full picture of the telemetry analysis soon. Did they mention when the full data from EDL is expected to be received?
Thanks for the nice reporting by the way, I'm chairing a collaboration meeting and can't be messing around with live feeds too much :)
They said all of the telemetry is on the ground. TGO dumped about 600MB in total, though not all of that is EDM related. For EDM, data were nominal up until near the end of the parachute phase, and there is telemetry not matching simulation from there to a few seconds into powered descent. I would imagine a parachute or other failure resulting in off-nominal conditions at transition to powered descent, leading to loss of control a few seconds later, should be visible in the accelerometer data, if that's what happened.
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/20/2016 09:17 am
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/20/2016 09:25 am
Quote
20 October 2016
Essential data from the ExoMars Schiaparelli lander sent to its mothership Trace Gas Orbiter during the module’s descent to the Red Planet’s surface yesterday has been downlinked to Earth and is currently being analysed by experts.
Early indications from both the radio signals captured by the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), an experimental telescope array located near Pune, India, and from orbit by ESA’s Mars Express, suggested the module had successfully completed most steps of its 6-minute descent through the martian atmosphere. This included the deceleration through the atmosphere, and the parachute and heat shield deployment, for example.
But the signals recorded by both Pune and Mars Express stopped shortly before the module was expected to touchdown on the surface. Discrepancies between the two data sets are being analysed by experts at ESA’s space operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany.
The detailed telemetry recorded by the Trace Gas Orbiter was needed to better understand the situation. At the same time as Schiaparelli’s descent, the orbiter was performing a crucial ‘Mars Orbit Insertion’ manoeuvre – which it completed successfully. These important data were recorded from Schiaparelli and beamed back to Earth in the early hours of Thursday morning.
The data have been partially analysed and confirm that the entry and descent stages occurred as expected, with events diverging from what was expected after the ejection of the back heat shield and parachute. This ejection itself appears to have occurred earlier than expected, but analysis is not yet complete.
The thrusters were confirmed to have been briefly activated although it seems likely that they switched off sooner than expected, at an altitude that is still to be determined.
“Following yesterday’s events we have an impressive orbiter around Mars ready for science and for relay support for the ExoMars rover mission in 2020,” said Jan Wörner, ESA’s Director General.
“Schiaparelli’s primary role was to test European landing technologies. Recording the data during the descent was part of that, and it is important we can learn what happened, in order to prepare for the future.”
“In terms of the Schiaparelli test module, we have data coming back that allow us to fully understand the steps that did occur, and why the soft landing did not occur,” said David Parker, ESA’s Director of Human Spaceflight and Robotic Exploration.
“From the engineering standpoint, it’s what we want from a test, and we have extremely valuable data to work with. We will have an enquiry board to dig deeper into the data and we cannot speculate further at this time.”
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway)
Post by: Moskit on 10/20/2016 09:37 am
My impression is that ESA largely know what happened, just works to establish full sequence of events and their interpretation before communicating this publicly.
Based on expected timeline parachute should have been dropped about 30s before the landing while observed drop and carrier loss were 50s before it. Event was based on lander slowing down (to about 250-270 km/h in ESA materials) and its altitude (about 1300m), therefore considering lander was too fast/too low.
Meanwhile "news" report headlines "Scientists still unable to say if Schiaparelli landed in one piece", sigh...
Post by: apogeewhizz on 10/20/2016 09:40 am
Do we know if the thruster burn cut off early, or was it the data stream that cut during the burn?
Jonathan Amos (https://twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/789025867712307200) (BBC) summarises (from what appears to perhaps be a post press-conference conversation with Accomazzo) that "The communication from Schiaparelli ends 50 seconds earlier than expected. The telemetry indicates everything was going well up until the ejection of the parachute. The telemetry says the retro-rockets did fire. This event lasts three or four seconds." But then "communication with Schiaparelli is maintained for 19 seconds after the rockets are seen to shut off. (Is the probe in free fall?)"
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/20/2016 09:45 am
Post by: dsky on 10/20/2016 10:11 am
Q: possibility of taking a picture from MRO ?
A: Likelihood for getting a picture is difficult, pics will be taken, but not sure if possible
I am pretty sure that today, at around 17:00 UTC, MRO/HiRISE will picture the landing site.
So the understanding is that he is not sure if the picture will reveal anything. Also because of uncertainty in the exact location of EDM.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/20/2016 10:26 am
Fortunately for the ESA engineering team, the TGO orbiter recorded up to 600 megabytes of data from the Schiaparelli's entry into the Martian atmosphere and its descent to the surface. All this information was successfully downlinked on the ground in the early hours of October 20.
The very preliminary analysis of the data revealed a number of serious problems at the final phase of the parachute descent. The telemetry showed that the back heat shield holding the parachute had been ejected earlier than scheduled -- 50 seconds instead of 30 seconds before the touchdown. Also, the lander was apparently descending at a speed higher than normal. There were also indications that soft-landing engines had fired for only three or four seconds and all the communications from the lander had been cut 19 seconds later, or shortly before the touchdown. By that time, Schiaparelli's landing radar had been activated.
Less than 24 hours after the botched landing, ESA engineers expressed confidence that they had received enough data to find out exactly what happened, but it would take some time to sift through all the information and interpret the findings. As a result, even in failure, the lander still provided much of the engineering data sought from the mission. There was also an early hope that measurements from onboard engineering sensors collected by the AMELIA payload during the entry and descent could also be recovered.
http://russianspaceweb.com/exomars2016-edm-landing.html#failure
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/20/2016 10:55 am
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/exomars-duo-orbit-insertion-landing-mars/
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2016 11:07 am
My impression is that ESA largely know what happened, just works to establish full sequence of events and their interpretation before communicating this publicly..
Based on what?
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/20/2016 11:09 am
Shortly put: people compare Schiaparelli to Mars 3 and Mars 6 landers. Others say : Mars 6 hard a solid rocket which has nothing to do with modern descend systems developed in recent years.
Another commenter noted that Beagle 2 lander didn't have retro-rockets at all, only airbags.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 10/20/2016 11:11 am
Q: possibility of taking a picture from MRO ?
A: Likelihood for getting a picture is difficult, pics will be taken, but not sure if possible
I am pretty sure that today, at around 17:00 UTC, MRO/HiRISE will picture the landing site.
So the understanding is that he is not sure if the picture will reveal anything. Also because of uncertainty in the exact location of EDM."
A simultaneous CTX image will help locate the site even if HiRISE mises it, allowing a better chance on a future pass.
Post by: woods170 on 10/20/2016 11:21 am
Only in the eye of the beholder. Not an ESA problem.Question: "How likely is it that the lander crashed?"They just stated the facts, clearly, shortly, concisely. Not their fault that its not getting through
Answer: "I don't understand the question"
Really? Stop with this forced optimism when we just want to hear facts. Typical evasive ESA press conference yet again.
Problem is it makes them look evasive.
Post by: woods170 on 10/20/2016 11:29 am
If this information is correct, and the parachute had been ejected and the retro-rockets had terminated early, than yes, the probe would be in free fall. The signal going silent 19 seconds after termination of retro thrust is likely the point in time where the lander impacted hard on the surface of Mars.Do we know if the thruster burn cut off early, or was it the data stream that cut during the burn?
Jonathan Amos (https://twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/789025867712307200) (BBC) summarises (from what appears to perhaps be a post press-conference conversation with Accomazzo) that "The communication from Schiaparelli ends 50 seconds earlier than expected. The telemetry indicates everything was going well up until the ejection of the parachute. The telemetry says the retro-rockets did fire. This event lasts three or four seconds." But then "communication with Schiaparelli is maintained for 19 seconds after the rockets are seen to shut off. (Is the probe in free fall?)"
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/20/2016 11:37 am
Yes, emotionally we may be angry that Schiaparelli apparently crashed.
From a rational point of view : Schiaparelli was frequently described as a technology demonstrator. It could have worked or not. This time - it worked somewhat, because the computer successfully executed most commands - parachute got deployed, heat shield got separated, radar got activated and the engines started firing. We don't know yet what exactly happened during the last seconds.
So what do the ESA engineers have? They have hard engineering data. Hard experimental data that would help future missions. Which is what a demonstrator is supposed to do. And additionally, they have confirmation that ESA is able to communicate with a landing spacecraft via an orbiter. Also there are indications that the AMELIA experiment was also conducted and there could be some important scientific data about the structure of the Mars atmosphere.
This is not a failure. When you have experimental data, this is what matters - even if it doesn't match expectations.
Post by: Moskit on 10/20/2016 11:40 am
ESA people have full telemetry (confirmed at the conference). They already know where and how it deviated from expected (also confirmed). They were very confident they can explain everything based on data received (firm confirmation, while it could have been answered with less confidence).My impression is that ESA largely know what happened, just works to establish full sequence of events and their interpretation before communicating this publicly..Based on what?
All of that should allow to build a picture of how the lander behaved, even if this was not revealed during the conference (it's not SpaceX or NASA). Why it happened (parachute, atmosphere, thrusters, radar...) remains to be found out.
Similar - ESA neither confirmed nor denied that the lander has landed softly. Even though it's most probable that it crashed, ESA did not want to provide a statement until all steps are completed. My impression though is that lander crashed hard.
Post by: Archibald on 10/20/2016 11:46 am
Post by: dsky on 10/20/2016 11:54 am
"Quote from: savuporo on Today at 08:23 AM
Q: possibility of taking a picture from MRO ?
A: Likelihood for getting a picture is difficult, pics will be taken, but not sure if possible
I am pretty sure that today, at around 17:00 UTC, MRO/HiRISE will picture the landing site.
So the understanding is that he is not sure if the picture will reveal anything. Also because of uncertainty in the exact location of EDM."
A simultaneous CTX image will help locate the site even if HiRISE mises it, allowing a better chance on a future pass.
CTX has not enough resolution to see it. Compare its field of view with that of HiRISE. Remember also how marginal was HiRISE imaging of Beagle.
Post by: ames on 10/20/2016 12:01 pm
It will take some processing but I'm sure they will find it.
Ames
Post by: Phil Stooke on 10/20/2016 12:11 pm
Not to see 'it' clearly, but a bright spot about 2 pixels across for a parachute and dark patches of disturbed soil near the heatshield and the lander impacts - quite a bit larger than the objects themselves - they may very well be resolved. CTX will probably help target HiRISE.
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2016 12:14 pm
ESA people have full telemetry (confirmed at the conference). They already know where and how it deviated from expected (also confirmed). They were very confident they can explain everything based on data received (firm confirmation, while it could have been answered with less confidence).My impression is that ESA largely know what happened, just works to establish full sequence of events and their interpretation before communicating this publicly..Based on what?
All of that should allow to build a picture of how the lander behaved, even if this was not revealed during the conference (it's not SpaceX or NASA). Why it happened (parachute, atmosphere, thrusters, radar...) remains to be found out.
Similar - ESA neither confirmed nor denied that the lander has landed softly. Even though it's most probable that it crashed, ESA did not want to provide a statement until all steps are completed. My impression though is that lander crashed hard.
Just because they have the data doesn't mean they know what happened. See Spacex. And they don't have a video or physical evidence like spacex
Post by: Star One on 10/20/2016 12:15 pm
Only in the eye of the beholder. Not an ESA problem.Question: "How likely is it that the lander crashed?"They just stated the facts, clearly, shortly, concisely. Not their fault that its not getting through
Answer: "I don't understand the question"
Really? Stop with this forced optimism when we just want to hear facts. Typical evasive ESA press conference yet again.
Problem is it makes them look evasive.
Doesn't matter how you spin it the press have their story and that for better or worse is how the greater public will perceive it.
Post by: ames on 10/20/2016 12:19 pm
If Schiaparelli "landed" at high speed, then the disturbed soil may be very evident - A new impact crater and ejecta!
Ames
Post by: dsky on 10/20/2016 12:20 pm
"CTX has not enough resolution to see it. Compare its field of view with that of HiRISE. Remember also how marginal was HiRISE imaging of Beagle."
Not to see 'it' clearly, but a bright spot about 2 pixels across for a parachute and dark patches of disturbed soil near the heatshield and the lander impacts - quite a bit larger than the objects themselves - they may very well be resolved. CTX will probably help target HiRISE.
There is no such a thing as real time targeting. I think the image from HiRISE will also be supported by one from CTX. I am not convinced it can help at all for a new try. However this will mean trying again after one week. Imaging and other science activities are planned on a weekly basis (to simplify it, it is more complex actually).
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/20/2016 12:34 pm
From EDL sequence videos, Schiaparelli was supposed to separate from its rear heat shield/parachutes BEFORE thrusters were to fire. From what I gather today, they have no confirmation of rear heat shield separation/parachute release, but do have confirmation that the thrusters started firing.
Wondering if this could be a moment where Schiaparelli didn't separate from the rear heat shield as anticipated. If the thrusters started firing with all that extra weight and drag from parachutes and rear heat shield still attached, that could definitely have thrown off the landing sequence and parameters and messed up the thrusters firing within the rear heat shield.
Post by: JimO on 10/20/2016 12:39 pm
So what do the ESA engineers have? They have hard engineering data. Hard experimental data that would help future missions. Which is what a demonstrator is supposed to do. And additionally, they have confirmation that ESA is able to communicate with a landing spacecraft via an orbiter. Also there are indications that the AMELIA experiment was also conducted and there could be some important scientific data about the structure of the Mars atmosphere.
And Moskit's excellent comments too --
I don't recall ANY previous lander with a TENTH as much descent data transmitted in real time -- evidence the designers properly assessed the level of testing justified by this mission, and the value of it. You often learn more from failure than success, this may prove the best example yet. Kudos to the mission designers.
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/20/2016 12:47 pm
So what do the ESA engineers have? They have hard engineering data. Hard experimental data that would help future missions. Which is what a demonstrator is supposed to do. And additionally, they have confirmation that ESA is able to communicate with a landing spacecraft via an orbiter. Also there are indications that the AMELIA experiment was also conducted and there could be some important scientific data about the structure of the Mars atmosphere.
And Moskit's excellent comments too --
I don't recall ANY previous lander with a TENTH as much descent data transmitted in real time -- evidence the designers properly assessed the level of testing justified by this mission, and the value of it. You often learn more from failure than success, this may prove the best example yet. Kudos to the mission designers.
A result of the Beagle 2 mission; one of the primary critiscisms in the aftermath was the lack of descent telemetry.
Ironically in hindsight that might not have resolved the issue back then.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/20/2016 12:51 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/20/2016 01:01 pm
Were there any unique aspects of the lander design that were never used in previous Mars landings?
I think it was the crushable structure... It's different than what we had on Spirit and Oppy (airbags). It's more closely related to the "deadbeat" airbags of Beagle 3 (that never flew)
Post by: Xentry on 10/20/2016 01:08 pm
Were there any unique aspects of the lander design that were never used in previous Mars landings?Propulsive planetary landing has never been validated in an ESA mission.
On a sarcastic side note, it looks like the crushable structures were actually tested - if on a slightly off-nominal condition - and failed to show sufficient robustness in an operational environment.
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/20/2016 01:35 pm
Question time.I talk science to the public as part of my job, and this is a VERY poor answer. First off, it starts with a lie, "I don't understand the question." That's never a good way to start. It's true that "how likely" and "crash landing" are not technical terms, but I find it impossible to believe that a scientist good enough to speak at a press conference did not understand the question.
Q: BBC news, how likely was this a crash landing ?
A: I don't understand the question.
The answer should have been, In my opinion, "Based on what we know, it is very likely this was a crash landing. However, the analysis is just beginning and much data remains to be examined, so we are not sure exactly what happened."
The problem is that weasel answers like this breed mistrust. Answers like this are typical of marketing, and precisely why customers prefer to talk to engineering. They are why people don't like lawyers, who claim they *did* answer the question, just with a different interpretation of the word "is". Evasive answers like this breed the impression that you can't trust their answers on anything else, if they are unwilling to answer a very clear question. It looks like they are trying to hide what really happened behind a technicality, which the public (rightfully) despises. It's just bad public relations.
Post by: Moskit on 10/20/2016 01:42 pm
Just because they have the data doesn't mean they know what happened. See Spacex. And they don't have a video or physical evidence like spacexI agree with you that there is not enough scientific information released from ESA to support such a conclusion.
That's why I wrote about "impression". Watching a conference, the way people react to questions, the way they phrase their answers - it all made an impression in addition to the words. Yes, very unscientific.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/20/2016 01:58 pm
Question time.I talk science to the public as part of my job, and this is a VERY poor answer. First off, it starts with a lie, "I don't understand the question." That's never a good way to start. It's true that "how likely" and "crash landing" are not technical terms, but I find it impossible to believe that a scientist good enough to speak at a press conference did not understand the question.
Q: BBC news, how likely was this a crash landing ?
A: I don't understand the question.
The answer should have been, In my opinion, "Based on what we know, it is very likely this was a crash landing. However, the analysis is just beginning and much data remains to be examined, so we are not sure exactly what happened."
The problem is that weasel answers like this breed mistrust. Answers like this are typical of marketing, and precisely why customers prefer to talk to engineering. They are why people don't like lawyers, who claim they *did* answer the question, just with a different interpretation of the word "is". Evasive answers like this breed the impression that you can't trust their answers on anything else, if they are unwilling to answer a very clear question. It looks like they are trying to hide what really happened behind a technicality, which the public (rightfully) despises. It's just bad public relations.
I really don't want to go into arguing with ESA's presentation, but yeah the way that they leave the details until the FAQ section didn't give me a good impression. It would have been much better that the facts are lay out plainly at the start. Maybe they are afraid that Italy et al. would pull the funding plug at the last minute.... :-X
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/20/2016 02:22 pm
Just amazing the amount of data it sent during the landing phase.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 10/20/2016 02:31 pm
Of course not. Good to see you understand that it is a future pass (as stated in the earlier post) which is aided by CTX.
Let's review it:
HiRISE swath width slightly less that 6 km. CTX swath width 30 km. The CTX resolution of about 5 m/pixel will probably resolve the parachute and any dark soil disturbances by the heatshield and lander impacts. The whole area has been imaged by CTX before, and a new image can be subtracted from an old one to indicate changes relatively easily. CTX should be able to locate the site, allowing a HiRISE attempt on the next good pass over the site. Good tracking data will help when it's ready, but if a CTX image was acquired during that comm pass, it may be useful prior to the full tracking analysis.
Post by: aku on 10/20/2016 02:34 pm
So what do the ESA engineers have? They have hard engineering data. Hard experimental data that would help future missions. Which is what a demonstrator is supposed to do. And additionally, they have confirmation that ESA is able to communicate with a landing spacecraft via an orbiter. Also there are indications that the AMELIA experiment was also conducted and there could be some important scientific data about the structure of the Mars atmosphere.I don't recall ANY previous lander with a TENTH as much descent data transmitted in real time -- evidence the designers properly assessed the level of testing justified by this mission, and the value of it. You often learn more from failure than success, this may prove the best example yet. Kudos to the mission designers.
Phoenix lander and MSL/Curiosity had a lot more, bent-pipe live telemetry packets from the lander via orbiter. MSL even had realtime trajectory simulation based on the IMU telemetry from the lander. NASA recognised the value of live telemetry based on past lander failures, which lacked the feature.
Post by: Star One on 10/20/2016 02:58 pm
Question time.I talk science to the public as part of my job, and this is a VERY poor answer. First off, it starts with a lie, "I don't understand the question." That's never a good way to start. It's true that "how likely" and "crash landing" are not technical terms, but I find it impossible to believe that a scientist good enough to speak at a press conference did not understand the question.
Q: BBC news, how likely was this a crash landing ?
A: I don't understand the question.
The answer should have been, In my opinion, "Based on what we know, it is very likely this was a crash landing. However, the analysis is just beginning and much data remains to be examined, so we are not sure exactly what happened."
The problem is that weasel answers like this breed mistrust. Answers like this are typical of marketing, and precisely why customers prefer to talk to engineering. They are why people don't like lawyers, who claim they *did* answer the question, just with a different interpretation of the word "is". Evasive answers like this breed the impression that you can't trust their answers on anything else, if they are unwilling to answer a very clear question. It looks like they are trying to hide what really happened behind a technicality, which the public (rightfully) despises. It's just bad public relations.
I really don't want to go into arguing with ESA's presentation, but yeah the way that they leave the details until the FAQ section didn't give me a good impression. It would have been much better that the facts are lay out plainly at the start. Maybe they are afraid that Italy et al. would pull the funding plug at the last minute.... :-X
This is what I was getting at up thread when I mentioned that answering like this makes them look evasive, whether they were being or not.
Post by: Bubbinski on 10/20/2016 04:30 pm
Post by: baldusi on 10/20/2016 04:34 pm
Post by: Donosauro on 10/20/2016 04:40 pm
It would be interesting to know whether the atmospheric pressure and wind speeds during Schiaparelli entry were normal or whether the pressure was higher or lower than expected. For what it's worth, Mars was not having a big dust storm as far as I could tell, although the lower hemisphere was more noticeable (clouds?) I took this picture of Mars last night with my C8 telescope.
As I understand things, the original intent was to land Schiaparelli during Mars' dust storm season, so that the atmosphere could be characterized during those (near-worst-case?) conditions.
Post by: Nigeluna on 10/20/2016 04:43 pm
The forward head shield jettisoned ok.
The parachute and aft heatshield were jettisoned early - or maybe not at all?
It is rumoured to have been travelling too fast at the time.
The motors started firing but stopped after a few seconds.
Nineteen seconds later comms was lost - some 50 seconds before expected time of landing.
It seems reasonably probable to assume comms were lost when the lander went ker-splat!
This is going to be an interesting fault tree to try and pin down. Is there more than one fault (chute, motors etc) or is this caused by a computer trying to make sense of inputs outside their expected range and going totally crazy. Makes the current Falcon 9 exercise look simple in some ways. At least ESA have a reasonable load of data even if the high resolution data set is probably mixed in with the Martian regolith.
The case of MPL (if I remember correctly) has already been mentioned though from memory this probably wasn't a faulty sensor. My recollection of the likely problem is that the heat shield was jettisoned and the legs deployed as expected. Unfortunately as the legs deployed they swung past their normal rest position and briefly gave the indication that the lander was resting on the ground. This set a computer flag which was ignored initially. The landing motors duly started and then the computer began to poll for the flag indicating landing as the signal to cut the motors. As this flag was already set the motors cut - 1800 feet up! Without data of course there is no confirmation that this happened but if anyone knows differently I would be fascinated to hear a better story. Just goes to show how convoluted this sort of problem can get!
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 04:49 pm
Quote
“The parachute ejection was not exactly according to our expectations. We cannot judge yet under what logic” the lander’s computer gave the order, Andrea Accomazzo, head of ESA’s planetary mission division, said at ESA’s Esoc space operations center here Oct. 20 during a press briefing.
http://spacenews.com/europes-exomars-successfully-inserted-into-mars-orbit-but-lander-may-be-lost/
Everyone do note that this presser was held within a very short window of time of being able to look at the received telemetry. TGO downlinked its MOI burn data first, not sure when the Schiaparelli telemetry stream got to the ground, but between everyone needing some sleep and coffee, by the time of the presser they couldn't have had more than a few hours to look at it.
Post by: Donosauro on 10/20/2016 04:50 pm
In piecing together what was said and trying to better understand this, from what I gather the data was nominal through parachute deployment and most of the parachute sequence – going awry somewhere toward the end of the parachute sequence WITH engines already firing for 3 to 4 seconds before LOS approximately 50 seconds before expected landing.
From EDL sequence videos, Schiaparelli was supposed to separate from its rear heat shield/parachutes BEFORE thrusters were to fire. From what I gather today, they have no confirmation of rear heat shield separation/parachute release, but do have confirmation that the thrusters started firing.
Wondering if this could be a moment where Schiaparelli didn't separate from the rear heat shield as anticipated. If the thrusters started firing with all that extra weight and drag from parachutes and rear heat shield still attached, that could definitely have thrown off the landing sequence and parameters and messed up the thrusters firing within the rear heat shield.
If I correctly read the press release quoted in post #599, then it is thought that the rear heat shield separated:
"Early indications from both the radio signals captured by the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), an experimental telescope array located near Pune, India, and from orbit by ESA’s Mars Express, suggested the module had successfully completed most steps of its 6-minute descent through the martian atmosphere. This included the deceleration through the atmosphere, and the parachute and heat shield deployment, for example."
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway)
These are only "early indications", though, so perhaps not confirmation.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 04:53 pm
..These are only "early indications", though, so perhaps not confirmation.That was only an indirect guess via doppler shift delta - i.e. speed change. Actual telemetry has more definitive answers
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 04:57 pm
Quote
"We cannot resolve yet under which, let's say, logic that the machine has decided to eject the parachute. But this is definitely far too early compared to our expectations," Andrea Accomazzo, the head of operations for Esa's planetary missions, told BBC News.
He didnt say exactly that on press briefing, supposedly on the follow up microphone pestering
EDIT: also, replay of the press briefing here:
http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2016/10/ExoMars_press_briefing_20_October
Post by: asmi on 10/20/2016 05:30 pm
Post by: BeamRider on 10/20/2016 05:36 pm
Post by: DatUser14 on 10/20/2016 05:41 pm
Very much a newbie and mostly a lurker, so please forgive any faux pas. I have thoughts to share and questions to ask on the whole topic of using parachutes in spacecraft landings. Is this the place, or is there another forum that would be more appropriate?The Q&A section would be most appropriate. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=36.0
Post by: Skamp_X on 10/20/2016 05:43 pm
I will assume a ripped chute aswell , probe came down fast, ended up too low when the heatshield was jettisoned,
radar switched on detecting low altitude setting off next event ,jettison chutes,
thrusters fired but got overwhelmed by speed and drag and it flipped over,
maybe at this point detecting the top cover and shut down the thrusters assuming it was close to land,
19sec of freefall and , mars + 1 small crater.
Post by: redliox on 10/20/2016 06:12 pm
"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
"We bury Schiaparelli within Mars' crust."
Post by: tjchambers on 10/20/2016 06:54 pm
Post by: as58 on 10/20/2016 06:58 pm
Sometimes dozens of channels of telemetry could be overshadowed by the value of one camera.
And bandwidth requirement of one camera can overshadow thousands of telemetry channels.
Post by: jgoldader on 10/20/2016 07:01 pm
Part of me wonders if propulsive-only landings (i.e., Red Dragon) might end up being more reliable, once it's all figured out. I guess it might be a limitation of mass-to-TMI that has held back that technique to date, but I'm not sure.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 07:11 pm
Nah. This works both ways. The entire EDL recording would be next to useless without IMU for instance.Sometimes dozens of channels of telemetry could be overshadowed by the value of one camera.
And bandwidth requirement of one camera can overshadow thousands of telemetry channels.
How true.
Post by: Nigeluna on 10/20/2016 07:22 pm
The lander has two antennae. The first used is mounted externally on the back of the aeroshell and the second (a uhf helical) is mounted approximately centrally on the lander upper surface. When the parachute and upper cover are jettisoned there is an automatic changover mechanism of some sort to the helical.
I guess one coud postulate some dirty separation event that resulted in loss of antenna function and hence comms. Personally I think an encounter with a relatively large planet is more likely but ... .
Post by: Lar on 10/20/2016 08:08 pm
Thank you for your understanding. Post not deleted just yet but bucking this upstairs.
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:20 pm
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/space/press-release/exomars-story-continues
Quote
Thales Alenia Space Italy is the industrial prime contractor for the ExoMars program, and is also responsible for design of the 2016 Entry, descent and landing Demonstrator Module (EDM)
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/49179-parachute-system-tests/
Quote
The parachute test activities are carried out by Thales Alenia Space, France, and AeroSekur, led by Thales Alenia Space - Italy, including key contributions from Vorticity Ltd. and Cambridge University (sub-scale high altitude drop tests) and CNES / Swedish Space Corporation (full-scale high altitude drop tests to be performed in 2012), under the close supervision of ESA.
http://www.vorticity-systems.com/case-studies/thalesesa-exomars/
Quote
Ensuring a successful parachute system is a vital element of the design of the ExoMars 2016 mission.
Vorticity has responsibility for the parachute system performance, oversight of parachute system design and system level testing.
Vorticity is simulating parachute performance throughout the operational Mach number regime using fluid structure interaction (FSI) analysis.
Vorticity managed subsonic wind tunnel tests of the second stage parachute at the 9 m x 9 m CNRC wind tunnel and is working on supersonic testing of the first stage parachute in the NASA Glenn 10 ft x 10 ft tunnel.
We have already conducted successful subscale high altitude drop testing of the parachute and are developing the high altitude drop test vehicle, its controller and instrumentation that will be used to conduct an end-to end test of the full scale parachute system following release from a balloon from 30 km altitude.
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57384-schiaparellis-parachute-with-team/
Quote
Pictured here are some of the people from ESA, industry (Thales Alenia Space Italy, Thales Alenia Space France, Vorticity, General Dynamics (USA)) and the NFAC test facility with the qualification model of Schiaparelli's parachute.
Further, some technical precentations by Vorticity on related testing at http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Index.html , Entry, Descent and Landing
http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Presentations/Room%202.2/Tuesday/Entry,%20Descent%20and%20Landing%20I/2.2_0930_Underwood_Lingard.pdf
http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Presentations/Room%202.2/Tuesday/Entry,%20Descent%20and%20Landing%20I/2.2_1010_Underwood_Lingard.pdf
http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Presentations/Room%202.2/Tuesday/Entry,%20Descent%20and%20Landing%20I/2.2_1030_Underwood_Lingard.pdf
Post by: Khadgars on 10/20/2016 08:23 pm
Goes to show how difficult Mars is, and how incredible a job JPL and NASA have done thus far.
Hopefully the impacts to ExoMars2020 isn't as significant as it looks now, and cheers to a new Orbiter around Mars.
Post by: yokem55 on 10/20/2016 08:30 pm
Maybe it was the chute, maybe not. Parachutes on Mars are very, very hard. If you watch the "Roving Mars" IMAX movie about Spirit and Opportunity, you can see several parachute test failures--the chute rips, or "squids" and doesn't open, nasty things like that. Remember that the parachutes are being opened at supersonic velocity (at least they were for the MERs) and there's a lot of finesse (I daresay, "art") involved in getting a configuration that's physically able to do the job. Just because a configuration worked properly with one spacecraft doesn't mean it will work properly with the next.A shredded chute makes sense.
Part of me wonders if propulsive-only landings (i.e., Red Dragon) might end up being more reliable, once it's all figured out. I guess it might be a limitation of mass-to-TMI that has held back that technique to date, but I'm not sure.
1) Chute deployed, and somehow substantially underperforms (shreds, twists, doesn't fully deploy, etc.)
2) Ground radar shows craft is at altitude for cutting chute and deploying backshell and starting up engines. It does so. However since the craft is moving too fast, it arrived at the deployment altitude really early.
3) Since the craft is moving way too fast, it doesn't have enough time to slow down enough before engaging in an excessive lithobraking maneuver, thus stopping the burn and telemetry early as well.
Post by: BeamRider on 10/20/2016 08:53 pm
Bingo. Same thing I was wanting to bring up. And there is a related possibility: using the reentry vehicle as a lifting body. I don't mean a purpose-designed "lifting body" like the Shuttle, just a discoid shape like the EDM and Opportunity used, with the addition of attitude control thrusters to allow it to transition from bottom-first at initial entry, to a tilted-nose-up angle that could develop lift. That might allow it to maintain (gain?) altitude and bleed off velocity, prior to using a lower-speed parachute opening, or just going to a full propulsive landing.
IIRC the Apollo capsules returning from the Moon used some form of this maneuver to accomplish what I heard described as a skipping-stone reentry, where the capsule actually gained back some altitude after initial entry and then resumed descent, repeating this process more than once. If you have propulsive landing mastered, could you use dynamic soaring like this to lose most of your energy with atmospheric braking (which is what a parachute really is doing) and let propulsion manage the rest down to landing? Could you just get rid of chutes altogether?
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:57 pm
ExoMars-2016 Entry Descent and Landing operational approach and sensitivity analysis
Dario Pellegrinetti , Robert Guilanyà
Post by: savuporo on 10/20/2016 08:59 pm
...using the reentry vehicle as a lifting body. I don't mean a purpose-designed "lifting body" like the Shuttle, just a discoid shape like the EDM and Opportunity used, with the addition of attitude control thrusters to allow it to transition from bottom-first at initial entry, to a tilted-nose-up angle that could develop lift.
Read up on Curiosity. This is being done.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2012/06221711-how-curiosity-land-part-1.html
Here is some history on the whole thing:
http://www.4frontiers.us/dev/assets/Braun_Paper_on_Mars_EDL.pdf
Quote
(written before MSL landing)To date, no Mars entry system has utilized a real-time
hypersonic guidance algorithm to autonomously adjust its flight within the Mars atmosphere. MPF and MER flew ballistic (non-lifting) entries, and as such had no means of exerting aerodynamic control over the atmospheric flight path.
...
The Mars Science Laboratory will take the first major step toward performing precision landing at Mars. Utilizing hypersonic aeromaneuvering technology and improved approach navigation techniques, this spacecraft should set down within 10 km of the specified science target. This is essentially an order of magnitude improvement over the Mars Pathfinder and MER ballistic entries. Such an advance is possible as a result of improved interplanetary navigation techniques and the qualification for flight of a lifting aeroshell configuration directed by an autonomous atmospheric guidance algorithm that controls the aeroshell
lift vector during the high dynamic-pressure portion of atmospheric flight
Post by: Targeteer on 10/20/2016 09:03 pm
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/20/2016 09:21 pm
A snarky post I admit up front... If NASA had a proven, successful parachute/propulsive system for a Mars landing, why go off and design another one from scratch instead? Likely answer to me, national pride. Recent example, NASA using the existing propulsion control section from ATV instead of paying a US contractor to recreate one scratch for the US crewed vehicle. That decision frakked off many in the US but made huge financial and operational sense and got a European contribution to a US program. Soap box speech over.
Just because there's a hammer that works, doesn't mean every problem is a nail.
Different designs will require different solutions. Kludges are often inefficient and expensive.
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 10/20/2016 09:23 pm
I don't recall ANY previous lander with a TENTH as much descent data transmitted in real time -- evidence the designers properly assessed the level of testing justified by this mission, and the value of it. You often learn more from failure than success, this may prove the best example yet. Kudos to the mission designers.
A result of the Beagle 2 mission; one of the primary critiscisms in the aftermath was the lack of descent telemetry.
Ironically in hindsight that might not have resolved the issue back then.
Also ironically, in view of the many criticisms by ESA of the Beagle 2 design, it seems likely that Beagle 2 did a better job of landing!
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/20/2016 10:00 pm
I don't recall ANY previous lander with a TENTH as much descent data transmitted in real time -- evidence the designers properly assessed the level of testing justified by this mission, and the value of it. You often learn more from failure than success, this may prove the best example yet. Kudos to the mission designers.
A result of the Beagle 2 mission; one of the primary critiscisms in the aftermath was the lack of descent telemetry.
Ironically in hindsight that might not have resolved the issue back then.
Also ironically, in view of the many criticisms by ESA of the Beagle 2 design, it seems likely that Beagle 2 did a better job of landing!
As a Brit I must admit to feeling a touch of schadenfreude right now; I remember how traumatic that failure was and all the pointing of fingers afterwards.
A snarky post I admit up front... If NASA had a proven, successful parachute/propulsive system for a Mars landing, why go off and design another one from scratch instead? Likely answer to me, national pride. Recent example, NASA using the existing propulsion control section from ATV instead of paying a US contractor to recreate one scratch for the US crewed vehicle. That decision frakked off many in the US but made huge financial and operational sense and got a European contribution to a US program. Soap box speech over.
Because ITAR.
Post by: Xentry on 10/20/2016 10:01 pm
If I correctly read the press release quoted in post #599, then it is thought that the rear heat shield separated:
"Early indications from both the radio signals captured by the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), an experimental telescope array located near Pune, India, and from orbit by ESA’s Mars Express, suggested the module had successfully completed most steps of its 6-minute descent through the martian atmosphere. This included the deceleration through the atmosphere, and the parachute and heat shield deployment, for example."
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway)
These are only "early indications", though, so perhaps not confirmation.
See the following two tweets from ESA Operations, written in real-time during the EDL:
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/788755964786839552
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/788756143459934208
Heatshield separation and powered descent were apparent from the doppler signal received at GMRT, and there was a signal increase which was interpreted as the EDM flying free from the parachute.
Indications that EDM was descending faster than expected, based on telemetry data received later, may explain an early parachute release, since nominally there is a look-up table onboard which is used by the computer to adjust parachute release altitude as a function of descent speed, for a known T/W available during the powered descent (this ensures there is always time to brake before reaching the ground). This was the case with MSL, but I don't have first hand knowledge about the conditions for transition between flight phases in EDM.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 10/20/2016 11:09 pm
Post by: Nigeluna on 10/20/2016 11:25 pm
ESA doesn't have the greatest track record on this but they are not alone. This is hard and you don't get a second chance. It puts recoveries like SOHO and Hyakutaki into an impressive light but they didn't have a collision with Mars to reckon with.
Post by: b0objunior on 10/21/2016 02:30 am
I'd suggest that we shouldn't discuss the subject emotionally, but rather rationally :)But it's still a failure because, although they have data, the primary goal was not met. It's a partial failure at best.
Yes, emotionally we may be angry that Schiaparelli apparently crashed.
From a rational point of view : Schiaparelli was frequently described as a technology demonstrator. It could have worked or not. This time - it worked somewhat, because the computer successfully executed most commands - parachute got deployed, heat shield got separated, radar got activated and the engines started firing. We don't know yet what exactly happened during the last seconds.
So what do the ESA engineers have? They have hard engineering data. Hard experimental data that would help future missions. Which is what a demonstrator is supposed to do. And additionally, they have confirmation that ESA is able to communicate with a landing spacecraft via an orbiter. Also there are indications that the AMELIA experiment was also conducted and there could be some important scientific data about the structure of the Mars atmosphere.
This is not a failure. When you have experimental data, this is what matters - even if it doesn't match expectations.
Post by: savuporo on 10/21/2016 02:42 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6Qs-7HLQ
What i gathered
- atmospheric entry phase nominal in every way
- temperatures during descent were nominal, heat shield worked exactly as expected
- heat shield release nominal
- early parachute release and short rocket burn is conflicting and not easily explained
- the time to get further insights depends if the failure is clearly seen in input sensor data stream and it easily explain the control actions, or if we need further testing and study of possible control logic failure
Post by: Nibb31 on 10/21/2016 06:14 am
But it's still a failure because, although they have data, the primary goal was not met. It's a partial failure at best.
Schiaparelli was a technical demonstrator sent as a secondary payload for Exomars, whose main mission is to monitor the composition of Mars' atmosphere.
The whole point of a technical demonstrator is to test something. Whether that thing works or not is not the point. The point is to get the data back to help you determine why it worked or didn't.
You have a hypothesis and you want to test it through experimentation. If the experimentation does not prove the hypothesis, then you can't say that the experiment failed. It succeeded in disproving your hypothesis, which allows you to move forward by reformulating a new one.
So Schiaparelli succeeded in disproving that at least one of the assumptions made for the EDL sequence was wrong. Schiaparelli succeeded in sending back telemetry that will allow ESA to move forward with better assumptions, and hopefully a better design. This isn't failure, it's validation, and it's a normal part of engineering and knowledge building.
Post by: savuporo on 10/21/2016 06:18 am
So Schiaparelli succeeded in disproving that at least one of the assumptions made for the EDL sequence was wrong.Good post, but we don't know that yet. If someone installed accelerometers backwards (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a4878/3045681/) nothing much was disproven.
Post by: Nibb31 on 10/21/2016 06:27 am
So Schiaparelli succeeded in disproving that at least one of the assumptions made for the EDL sequence was wrong.Good post, but we don't know that yet. If someone installed accelerometers backwards (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a4878/3045681/) nothing much was disproven.
If that was the case (which is unlikely), then Schiaparelli would have succeeded in disproving the assumption that the techs who built the probe are smart enough to properly assemble it. That would be valuable information for designing a better EDL system (and selecting contractors I guess).
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 06:41 am
How about another one? We know that the lander fired its engines briefly and the radar started taking data. What about something else - the lander could have slammed into the backshell and the parachute? Sounds unlikely? This was what the Phoenix team feared in 2008 and that's why they conducted a short maneuver after backshell separation :)
Post by: seshagirib on 10/21/2016 07:18 am
The landing radar somehow malfunctioned and gave an erroneous ground proximity (closer than actual) and speed (slower than actual) readings to the control logic.
The control logic released the chute based on the erroneous ground proximity and/or speed readings from the radar.
The control logic shut of the thrusters based on the erroneous ground proximity and speed readings from the radar.
Post by: woods170 on 10/21/2016 07:42 am
Yes, and contrary to the situation in the USA, ESA is not affected at all by public opinion. Courtesy of being a multi-national space agency.Only in the eye of the beholder. Not an ESA problem.Question: "How likely is it that the lander crashed?"They just stated the facts, clearly, shortly, concisely. Not their fault that its not getting through
Answer: "I don't understand the question"
Really? Stop with this forced optimism when we just want to hear facts. Typical evasive ESA press conference yet again.
Problem is it makes them look evasive.
Doesn't matter how you spin it the press have their story and that for better or worse is how the greater public will perceive it.
No matter how you spin it, ESA is not like NASA. So please stop the felgercarb about ESA being put in a bad light because that really is only happening in the eye of the beholder. Which in this case is not ESA but a silly thing called "the public".
Post by: woods170 on 10/21/2016 07:58 am
This.A snarky post I admit up front... If NASA had a proven, successful parachute/propulsive system for a Mars landing, why go off and design another one from scratch instead? Likely answer to me, national pride. Recent example, NASA using the existing propulsion control section from ATV instead of paying a US contractor to recreate one scratch for the US crewed vehicle. That decision frakked off many in the US but made huge financial and operational sense and got a European contribution to a US program. Soap box speech over.
Because ITAR.
ITAR is one of the prime drivers why ESA could not and still cannot use the NASA Mars EDL system. (There is another one, which I will discuss further below.) Fortunately for NASA, the European equivalent of ITAR is very substantially less restrictive in nature. So much so in fact that NASA can make use of a European service module for Orion with almost no limitations.
Another substantial reason for ESA developing it's own Mars EDL technology is because ESA is primarily all about the development of new technology and learning things themselves. From that point of view it makes perfect sense for ESA to develop it's own Mars EDL technology. ESA is not about taking the easy road provided by NASA or Roscosmos. See Ariane, see Olympus, see Galileo, see ATV, see ISO, see Herschell, see Planck, see Columbus, see Giotto, see Rosetta, see Mars Express, see Venus Express, see BepiColombo, etc, etc, etc. The number of missions where ESA "hitched a ride" from NASA or the Russians is substantially smaller than the number of fully independently developed missions.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 08:21 am
From today:
@ESA_TGO flight director Michel Denis: The #ExoMars orbiter is in excellent shape!
Post by: Star One on 10/21/2016 09:13 am
Yes, and contrary to the situation in the USA, ESA is not affected at all by public opinion. Courtesy of being a multi-national space agency.Only in the eye of the beholder. Not an ESA problem.Question: "How likely is it that the lander crashed?"They just stated the facts, clearly, shortly, concisely. Not their fault that its not getting through
Answer: "I don't understand the question"
Really? Stop with this forced optimism when we just want to hear facts. Typical evasive ESA press conference yet again.
Problem is it makes them look evasive.
Doesn't matter how you spin it the press have their story and that for better or worse is how the greater public will perceive it.
No matter how you spin it, ESA is not like NASA. So please stop the felgercarb about ESA being put in a bad light because that really is only happening in the eye of the beholder. Which in this case is not ESA but a silly thing called "the public".
Maybe you should try paying more attention to public opinion being as it is the public that ultimately pays ESA's bills. Something that NASA seems more aware of when it comes to their public engagement.
Post by: eeergo on 10/21/2016 09:22 am
There is this post-presser 1-1 interview with Accamazzo, he explains a bit more about the early telemetry data. Unfortunately in Italian ( watching with english auto-translation, corrections please )
I'm gonna post the full transcription of the interesting parts for completeness:
Quote
Schiaparelli has nominally performed the atmospheric entry phase. It has performed all the atmospheric flight phase, protected by the heat shield, in an absolutely nominal way. The heat shield has worked perfectly, protecting the capsule, the probe, in a perfect way, and was released in the conditions we exactly were foreseeing. At that point, the braking parachute was deployed, under 10 km in height. This has also happened in a nominal way, and the full parachute phase, from a preliminary analysis, reveals us completely nominal data.
At the end of this phase starts when Schiaparelli started behaving in a different way from what we were expecting.
[...]
The parachute was to remain attached to Schiaparelli until certain conditions were met. These conditions were verified nominally at 1km above the Martian surface. What we saw in telemetry was that the parachute release happened at a time -not necessarily at a height!, but a time- preceding our simulations: around 50s before what we foresaw. This may indicate, not necessarily, but may indicate that the parachute was released at a larger height than nominal, but we don't know that yet.
After this, Schiaparelli should have turned on the retro-rocket engines during 30s to brake during the last km of descent and land. These rockets were turned on, were on for only 3 seconds, and then Schiaparelli entered its landing mode. Now, these two informations (the very early parachute release and the much shorter duration of the retros firing than foreseen) contradict each other. We have to understand why the onboard logic took these decisions. We are not in a position to understand it yet, but the most important thing is that we have all the engineering data to understand why this sequence of decisions and actions was performed, which isn't consistent with our expectations.
[...]
The process to understand how the logic performed during those final minutes from the telemetry data should be a matter of a couple of days, some days at the most - we should be able to reconstruct what the onboard computer by putting all datasets together and having a little bit of time to process them. Now, why the decisions were taken, or why the sensors gave the onboard computer *non-correct* data (it's a hypothesis, obviously), it may happen that this takes a bit more time. If we refer to just the logical sequence in the software, it's just a matter of days to understand it, but if we go into why the hardware gave incorrect data, this will take quite some more time - at least weeks.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 09:42 am
The agency declared success:
http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2016/10/21/spacecraft-are-tricky-and-engineering-is-an-art-form/
Some people have asked about the success of the 2016 mission so far. For the number-crunchers among them the following observation may be helpful:
The importance of TGO and EDM can be described as 80% vs. 20%, respectively. Since we obtained at least 80% of the data during the descent, the overall success rate can be calculated as follows: 80+20*0.8 = 96%. All in all, a very positive result.
Post by: denis on 10/21/2016 10:00 am
Quote
[...]
After this, Schiaparelli should have turned on the retro-rocket engines during 30s to brake during the last km of descent and land. These rockets were turned on, were on for only 3 seconds, and then Schiaparelli entered its landing mode. Now, these two informations (the very early parachute release and the much shorter duration of the retros firing than foreseen) contradict each other. We have to understand why the onboard logic took these decisions. We are not in a position to understand it yet, but the most important thing is that we have all the engineering data to understand why this sequence of decisions and actions was performed, which isn't consistent with ...
Maybe there is no hardware failure but an issue with the GNC design itself. Maybe some parameters were outside the expected range and confused the GNC logic.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/21/2016 10:19 am
Alas, the photos taken by the descent camera wasn't planned to be transferred until after the landing....
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/21/2016 11:25 am
There is this post-presser 1-1 interview with Accamazzo, he explains a bit more about the early telemetry data. Unfortunately in Italian ( watching with english auto-translation, corrections please )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6Qs-7HLQ
What i gathered
- atmospheric entry phase nominal in every way
- temperatures during descent were nominal, heat shield worked exactly as expected
- heat shield release nominal
- early parachute release and short rocket burn is conflicting and not easily explained
- the time to get further insights depends if the failure is clearly seen in input sensor data stream and it easily explain the control actions, or if we need further testing and study of possible control logic failure
My Italian is not perfect but this is the interview:
Q: What do we know about Schiaparelli?
A: Let’s start with TGO first. We can confirm that the TGO is in the nominal orbit. It made the insertion to Mars in a perfect way, it is in a perfect health and during night we also knew another thing and that’s it recorded all the transmitted from Schiaparelli during the descent in terms of telemetry, so this is not simply a radio signal but a radio signal with engineering and scientific data. With all this, we started to process data.
Q: I guess there is a lot of data. Some of it has already been treated but the other not yet. For now, what has this data shown us?
A: Ok, the data set that we have recorded from Schiaparelli has already told us several things. Schiaparelli made a nominal atmospheric entry, it made all the atmospheric flight protected only by the thermic shield in an absolute nominal way. The thermic shield worked perfectly well, it has protected the capsule, the probe, perfectly and has been released under the conditions we expected. At this point the braking parachute has been released at an altitude of 10 km also in a nominal way. All along the phase with the parachute went perfectly nominal according to data. At the end of this stage, it starts the stage where Schiaparelli behaved differently from what we expected.
Q: So, all of this happened when the parachute has detached which was all planned, it has not been an accident. So it was expected the parachute to be detached and then what was planned to happen?
A: Yes, the parachute was planned to be attached to Schiaparelli until certain conditions were verified. This conditions were verified in an altitude about 1 km over the Martian surface. What we can observe from telemetry is that the parachute detachment took place in a time, not necessary at that altitude, before what we calculated in our simulations. This are 50 seconds before what we expected. This could show, but not necessarily, that the parachute was detached in a higher altitude from what was planned. We don’t know yet. After the parachute detachment, Schiaparelli had to ignite the rocket engines during 30 seconds to slow down during the last kilometer of descending and then to land. The retrorockets have been ignited only during 3 seconds and then the probe switched to the landing mode. These two facts, the early parachute detachment and the short retrorockets burning are contradictory. We must understand why the logic onboard took this decision. We cannot do it now but the important thing is that we have all the engineering data to understand why this happened this sequence of decisions which doesn’t match with what we expected.
Q: When we speak about nominal running, what are we talking about?
A: Basically it means the the events are coming at the time we expected them. For example, the thermal shield release came approximately at the time we expected and under the dynamic conditions Schiaparelli was sampling and we programmed it for it. We can say that the temperature inside the probe during the very high atmospheric velocity phase was absolutely nominal which means that the shield has protected the probe as we planned. This is what we understand by nominal.
Q: Perfect. So, at this point, how much time we must wait until we can reconstruct what really happened to the probe?
A: It is impossible to tell it accurately but, what I think, to understand which has been the logic of actions in the lasts minutes will only take us a couple of days. Then, why it has took that decisions? Why the hardware has been provided with misleading data? This could take much longer. Weeks maybe.
Post by: woods170 on 10/21/2016 12:00 pm
The public does not pay ESA's bills. The national governments of the member states do. It may be done with tax money and it may be done diffentley. Each member state decides for itself how to cough up the funding.Yes, and contrary to the situation in the USA, ESA is not affected at all by public opinion. Courtesy of being a multi-national space agency.Problem is it makes them look evasive.Only in the eye of the beholder. Not an ESA problem.
Doesn't matter how you spin it the press have their story and that for better or worse is how the greater public will perceive it.
No matter how you spin it, ESA is not like NASA. So please stop the felgercarb about ESA being put in a bad light because that really is only happening in the eye of the beholder. Which in this case is not ESA but a silly thing called "the public".
Maybe you should try paying more attention to public opinion being as it is the public that ultimately pays ESA's bills. Something that NASA seems more aware of when it comes to their public engagement.
Also, the amount they pay generally does not rely on how the public perceives ESA but on how much the member states will spare for ESA. For example: in the 2009 - 2014 financial crisis the ESA budget was cut for financial reasons, despite the fact that the public view of ESA actually improved during the same period.
Once again: how it works for NASA is not the way it works for ESA. ESA has no direct link to the public's opinion on a national level. Courtesy of being a multi-national space agency. It is for the very same reason that despite ESA's increased efforts at public PR it's budget has not increased accordingly.
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/21/2016 12:12 pm
E.g. is parachute release commanded by altitude? In which case a tangled chute would lead to apparently early release because the altitude would actually be correct, just not the velocity.
Likewise, what are the commands feeding into the retro burn start and end?
The thing that I find hard to construct a reason for is: why the retros would have shut off and the probe continue falling for around nineteen seconds (IIRC), still able to transmit.
Post by: Nigeluna on 10/21/2016 12:36 pm
"The retrorockets have been ignited only during 3 seconds and then the probe switched to the landing mode."
This strongly implies that the telemetry indicates as a hard fact that the system decided it was only a few feet above the surface and therefore the motors should be switched off. The fact that the signal continued for a surprisingly long time clearly shows this decision was erroneous - but why?
More shades of MPL? Similar probable effect but cause would be different if equally wierd.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 12:38 pm
The thing that I find hard to construct a reason for is: why the retros would have shut off and the probe continue falling for around nineteen seconds (IIRC), still able to transmit.
I also find it hard to understand the onboard logic. Schiaparelli is of a different design than, let's say, Phoenix. Phoenix had three legs with a sensor on each leg. When a sensor indicated the Phoenix landing, there was engine cutoff and landing.
But Schiaparelli has no landing legs, it has crushable structure. Apparently it was the radar who had to measure the distance Schiaparelli-ground and to determine the 2 meters at which the engines should switchoff.
So the lander entered so called "landing mode" .. i.e. freefall, which would mean that it has somehow detected that it was already at a 2 meter distance, while in reality it was possibly still at hundreds of meters above the ground. It was a freefall and an impact that apparently damaged the lander badly. The crushable structure wouldn't save the lander from hundreds of meters freefall.
The question is: what would confuse the computer so much it would shut off the engines so high above the ground?
Post by: baldusi on 10/21/2016 12:39 pm
Post by: b0objunior on 10/21/2016 12:43 pm
Both eeergo and Kosmos2001 translations are correct. He did add in the end that this was a test, that even though they didn't got the result that they expected, it was a good experiment done exactly to validate their models. The fact that they didn't got the expected result did not diminish the success of the experiment itself.I'm tired of earing this, if their model was correct, why did it crash? There must me a mistake.
Post by: b0objunior on 10/21/2016 12:45 pm
So what you're saying that PR annot help their cause in any way? I think we can agree to disagree.The public does not pay ESA's bills. The national governments of the member states do. It may be done with tax money and it may be done diffentley. Each member state decides for itself how to cough up the funding.Yes, and contrary to the situation in the USA, ESA is not affected at all by public opinion. Courtesy of being a multi-national space agency.Problem is it makes them look evasive.Only in the eye of the beholder. Not an ESA problem.
Doesn't matter how you spin it the press have their story and that for better or worse is how the greater public will perceive it.
No matter how you spin it, ESA is not like NASA. So please stop the felgercarb about ESA being put in a bad light because that really is only happening in the eye of the beholder. Which in this case is not ESA but a silly thing called "the public".
Maybe you should try paying more attention to public opinion being as it is the public that ultimately pays ESA's bills. Something that NASA seems more aware of when it comes to their public engagement.
Also, the amount they pay generally does not rely on how the public perceives ESA but on how much the member states will spare for ESA. For example: in the 2009 - 2014 financial crisis the ESA budget was cut for financial reasons, despite the fact that the public view of ESA actually improved during the same period.
Once again: how it works for NASA is not the way it works for ESA. ESA has no direct link to the public's opinion on a national level. Courtesy of being a multi-national space agency. It is for the very same reason that despite ESA's increased efforts at public PR it's budget has not increased accordingly.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 12:47 pm
I'm tired of earing this, if their model was correct, why did it crash? There must me a mistake.
And I'm tired of hearing of such kind of arguments. Models are actually computer simulations. You put as much information you know, and simulate what would happen. The problem is: you NEVER know if you really know every scenario in order to simulate it. Mars is still largely unexplored planet. We still don't know many things about the tricky atmosphere. The atmosphere is thin and nasty. So if you have found something that invalidates your model, it means that your model is wrong, however your experiment is SUCCESS in showing WHY it is wrong.
Post by: eeergo on 10/21/2016 12:53 pm
Both eeergo and Kosmos2001 translations are correct. He did add in the end that this was a test, that even though they didn't got the result that they expected, it was a good experiment done exactly to validate their models. The fact that they didn't got the expected result did not diminish the success of the experiment itself.I'm tired of earing this, if their model was correct, why did it crash? There must me a mistake.
Sorry you are tired. Real engineering and science are like this, pity you tire so rapidly.
Who said the model was correct? The test was successful because the model was not up to par with reality, and this test gave them information (600 MB of it), until well after the final EDL event (engine initiation), to hopefully correct it.
Post by: tolis on 10/21/2016 01:02 pm
The thing that I find hard to construct a reason for is: why the retros would have shut off and the probe continue falling for around nineteen seconds (IIRC), still able to transmit.
I also find it hard to understand the onboard logic. Schiaparelli is of a different design than, let's say, Phoenix. Phoenix had three legs with a sensor on each leg. When a sensor indicated the Phoenix landing, there was engine cutoff and landing.
But Schiaparelli has no landing legs, it has crushable structure. Apparently it was the radar who had to measure the distance Schiaparelli-ground and to determine the 2 meters at which the engines should switchoff.
So the lander entered so called "landing mode" .. i.e. freefall, which would mean that it has somehow detected that it was already at a 2 meter distance, while in reality it was possibly still at hundreds of meters above the ground. It was a freefall and an impact that apparently damaged the lander badly. The crushable structure wouldn't save the lander from hundreds of meters freefall.
The question is: what would confuse the computer so much it would shut off the engines so high above the ground?
According to this paper http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Bayle_ExoMars_EDM_Overview-Paper.pdf (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Bayle_ExoMars_EDM_Overview-Paper.pdf), there are two sources of data used by the Guidance Navigation and Control (GNC) system: The Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and the Radar Doppler Altimeter (RDA). Assuming that there is no inherent flaw with the guidance logic itself, either one or both of these systems must have produced erroneous data. I note, for instance, that the IMU is recalibrated just before atmospheric entry using a sun sensor on the backshell. If that somehow caused it to go awry (but the RDA was generating valid information), the GNC system would have to choose whether to believe the IMU or the RDA. Personally, I would have gone for the RDA! But perhaps the RDA is the culprit. For instance, what if the heat shield did not separate properly from the EDM and was being dragged along? the radar pulses would bounce back from it, GNC might interpret that as "the ground" and..adios amigos. Just speculation of course.
Post by: Nick on 10/21/2016 01:45 pm
The public does not pay ESA's bills. The national governments of the member states do. It may be done with tax money and it may be done diffentley. Each member state decides for itself how to cough up the funding.
Also, the amount they pay generally does not rely on how the public perceives ESA but on how much the member states will spare for ESA.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, there two points that are worth making:
a) the public absolutely does pay ESA's bills - ultimately the only place governments obtain money is through taxes on the public. If the public were to become actively hostile to ESA, the politicians' interest in funding it would evaporate faster than a summer rain puddle. Fortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen. Even here in the UK, ESA receives very benign media coverage, and so far has escaped the anti-European sentiment sadly running through much of our press at the moment.
b) if the public and press perception of ESA were unimportant to it, ESA's Director-General would not have crammed personally introducing the post-landing presser into what was clearly his tight schedule that morning, and neither he nor David Parker would have been at such great pains to emphasise TGO's success, and to downplay the failure of the landing attempt. With an upcoming Ministerial, they clearly didn't want an impression to gain traction that the result of spending €1.3bn on ExoMars will simply be to scatter bits of expensive hardware across the Martian landscape!
In that context, personally I think it was a shame that Jan Woerner tried to brush that first question off, claiming he didn't understand it. I would be amazed if, given his CV, and his position as ESA's DG, his grasp of English is not excellent. And, in any case, if he really didn't understand it, he had his British-born Director of HRE, David Parker, sitting at his shoulder to help. And he understood the question perfectly, I'm sure!
There were much better ways of answering that question, that's all. And it was an entirely foreseeable question that should have been planned for. Fortunately, no-one except us nerds is ever likely to watch the presser... ;)
Post by: Khadgars on 10/21/2016 02:14 pm
But it's still a failure because, although they have data, the primary goal was not met. It's a partial failure at best.
Schiaparelli was a technical demonstrator sent as a secondary payload for Exomars, whose main mission is to monitor the composition of Mars' atmosphere.
The whole point of a technical demonstrator is to test something. Whether that thing works or not is not the point. The point is to get the data back to help you determine why it worked or didn't.
You have a hypothesis and you want to test it through experimentation. If the experimentation does not prove the hypothesis, then you can't say that the experiment failed. It succeeded in disproving your hypothesis, which allows you to move forward by reformulating a new one.
So Schiaparelli succeeded in disproving that at least one of the assumptions made for the EDL sequence was wrong. Schiaparelli succeeded in sending back telemetry that will allow ESA to move forward with better assumptions, and hopefully a better design. This isn't failure, it's validation, and it's a normal part of engineering and knowledge building.
Schiaparelli was an engineering test, not a test to confirm a theory. The point of the test was to demonstrate that ESA could land any payload to the surface of Mars ahead of their 2020 rover, which will be much more complex. In this regard, it failed. Yes, they will get some useful data, but no need to spin this than what it is, a failure.
This is Mars, its ok to fail. But no need to pretend it didn't happen.
Post by: Davp99 on 10/21/2016 02:15 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 02:43 pm
People felt underwhelmed well before Schiaparelli was launched.
The most interesting part of the mission is currently in orbit around Mars. At least TGO has a very good camera. Plus, it's trying to answer biological questions.
Schiaparelli served its purpose. Not in a way many people expect, but still ...
Post by: notsorandom on 10/21/2016 02:50 pm
Clearly Schiaparelli didn't successfully land. Though it did return data through the majority of EDL up till the last 50 seconds, validating most of the engineering. Furthermore the telemetry they got should be good enough to eliminate whatever cause this failure in future designs. No it didn't land, but it also didn't go totally dark like Beagle 2 and Polar Lander. The next time ESA tries a Mars landing they will be much more likely to be successful because of was learned from this mission. In that way I can understand them calling this a successful test.Both eeergo and Kosmos2001 translations are correct. He did add in the end that this was a test, that even though they didn't got the result that they expected, it was a good experiment done exactly to validate their models. The fact that they didn't got the expected result did not diminish the success of the experiment itself.I'm tired of earing this, if their model was correct, why did it crash? There must me a mistake.
Sorry you are tired. Real engineering and science are like this, pity you tire so rapidly.
Who said the model was correct? The test was successful because the model was not up to par with reality, and this test gave them information (600 MB of it), until well after the final EDL event (engine initiation), to hopefully correct it.
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/21/2016 02:53 pm
This part:
The importance of TGO and EDM can be described as 80% vs. 20%, respectively. Since we obtained at least 80% of the data during the descent, the overall success rate can be calculated as follows: 80+20*0.8 = 96%. All in all, a very positive result.
Some maths here, some there and voilà, close to 100 % of success.
Post by: Thorny on 10/21/2016 03:00 pm
Some maths here, some there and voilà, close to 100 % of success.
That's like saying the Titanic was 75% successful because it made it 3/4 of the way to New York.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 03:10 pm
That's like saying the Titanic was 75% successful because it made it 3/4 of the way to New York.
This is a straw man argument
Post by: Star One on 10/21/2016 03:10 pm
The public does not pay ESA's bills. The national governments of the member states do. It may be done with tax money and it may be done diffentley. Each member state decides for itself how to cough up the funding.
Also, the amount they pay generally does not rely on how the public perceives ESA but on how much the member states will spare for ESA.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, there two points that are worth making:
a) the public absolutely does pay ESA's bills - ultimately the only place governments obtain money is through taxes on the public. If the public were to become actively hostile to ESA, the politicians' interest in funding it would evaporate faster than a summer rain puddle. Fortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen. Even here in the UK, ESA receives very benign media coverage, and so far has escaped the anti-European sentiment sadly running through much of our press at the moment.
b) if the public and press perception of ESA were unimportant to it, ESA's Director-General would not have crammed personally introducing the post-landing presser into what was clearly his tight schedule that morning, and neither he nor David Parker would have been at such great pains to emphasise TGO's success, and to downplay the failure of the landing attempt. With an upcoming Ministerial, they clearly didn't want an impression to gain traction that the result of spending €1.3bn on ExoMars will simply be to scatter bits of expensive hardware across the Martian landscape!
In that context, personally I think it was a shame that Jan Woerner tried to brush that first question off, claiming he didn't understand it. I would be amazed if, given his CV, and his position as ESA's DG, his grasp of English is not excellent. And, in any case, if he really didn't understand it, he had his British-born Director of HRE, David Parker, sitting at his shoulder to help. And he understood the question perfectly, I'm sure!
There were much better ways of answering that question, that's all. And it was an entirely foreseeable question that should have been planned for. Fortunately, no-one except us nerds is ever likely to watch the presser... ;)
That question and the poor response to it was a focus of the latter part of the BBC radio news coverage of the presser that day so it did actually get quite widely disseminated.
Post by: woods170 on 10/21/2016 03:18 pm
Again: No. It does not work that way. There are in fact ESA member states where a substantial portion of the tax payers think that ESA is a waste of money. My own country included. However, those member states still fund ESA. Why? Well, because public opinion/perception of ESA is not what determines financial support for ESA. Their governments make that determination. And I don't need telling you that most European governments have a tendency to NOT listen to the wishes of their voters.The public does not pay ESA's bills. The national governments of the member states do. It may be done with tax money and it may be done diffentley. Each member state decides for itself how to cough up the funding.
Also, the amount they pay generally does not rely on how the public perceives ESA but on how much the member states will spare for ESA.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, there two points that are worth making:
a) the public absolutely does pay ESA's bills - ultimately the only place governments obtain money is through taxes on the public. If the public were to become actively hostile to ESA, the politicians' interest in funding it would evaporate faster than a summer rain puddle. Fortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen. Even here in the UK, ESA receives very benign media coverage, and so far has escaped the anti-European sentiment sadly running through much of our press at the moment.
b) if the public and press perception of ESA were unimportant to it, ESA's Director-General would not have crammed personally introducing the post-landing presser into what was clearly his tight schedule that morning, and neither he nor David Parker would have been at such great pains to emphasise TGO's success, and to downplay the failure of the landing attempt. With an upcoming Ministerial, they clearly didn't want an impression to gain traction that the result of spending €1.3bn on ExoMars will simply be to scatter bits of expensive hardware across the Martian landscape!The DG is trying to soothe the governments and parliaments of the ESA member states. Not their tax payers. After all, the tax payers in most ESA member states have no direct say, and not even an in-direct say, into the funding of ESA. Only their national governments and parliaments do.
There were much better ways of answering that question, that's all. And it was an entirely foreseeable question that should have been planned for. Fortunately, no-one except us nerds is ever likely to watch the presser... ;)Emphasis mine. That's a fact. Most people in the ESA member states couldn't care less about ESA. It simply does not interest them enough to make a big fuss over that very limited amount of their tax money going to ESA. Even for the biggest contributor to ESA (Germany) it translates into is slightly less than 1 Euro per month per citizen going to ESA. For my country, it is slightly less than 50 Eurocents per month per citizen going to ESA. No "public" is going ape over those amounts. National parliaments are the possible exception.
Post by: tolis on 10/21/2016 03:19 pm
Post by: Eosterwine on 10/21/2016 03:24 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/21/2016 03:25 pm
So where are the pictures and are we expected to see them soon?
http://russianspaceweb.com/exomars2016-edm-landing.html#mro
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/21/2016 03:28 pm
Zak claims that MRO has imaged Schiaparelli.
Interesting indeed.
I emphasize this part: In the meantime, ESA engineers suspected that the GNS software had been a likely culprit in the failure. [...] Surprisingly, radar altimeter data, accelerometers and other sensors were delivering consistent and expected data, as far as ESA experts could reconstruct the events from the limited set of data captured by the TGO orbiter.
Post by: denis on 10/21/2016 04:13 pm
Interesting indeed.
I emphasize this part: In the meantime, ESA engineers suspected that the GNS software had been a likely culprit in the failure. [...] Surprisingly, radar altimeter data, accelerometers and other sensors were delivering consistent and expected data, as far as ESA experts could reconstruct the events from the limited set of data captured by the TGO orbiter.
Which is what I suggested two pages ago: as we don't have any information, there is no point speculating what failed. There is no need for an hardware failure to get a EDL failure, it can be in the GNC software itself (more likely a GNC design issue than a GNC software issue though).
Post by: hoku on 10/21/2016 04:41 pm
:'(
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/21/2016 05:06 pm
http://www.ansa.it/scienza/notizie/rubriche/spazioastro/2016/10/21/exomars-schiaparelli-precipitato-su-marte-da-2-4-chilometri_8688b7bb-95bc-4442-a8f4-ddcf7312d100.html (http://www.ansa.it/scienza/notizie/rubriche/spazioastro/2016/10/21/exomars-schiaparelli-precipitato-su-marte-da-2-4-chilometri_8688b7bb-95bc-4442-a8f4-ddcf7312d100.html)
(thanks Susanne Auer on Twitter for the tip)
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/21/2016 05:08 pm
Post by: swlee on 10/21/2016 05:27 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter_views_Schiaparelli_landing_site (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter_views_Schiaparelli_landing_site)
Edit: Sorry - Galactic Penguin beat me to it! But, here's the report from the MRO website:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1947
Post by: satwatcher on 10/21/2016 05:29 pm
Post by: wxmeddler on 10/21/2016 05:36 pm
Post by: MattMason on 10/21/2016 05:48 pm
Post by: notsorandom on 10/21/2016 05:49 pm
It certainly looks ESA got the trajectory nailed. Right in the center of the landing ellipse!That explains why Opportunity wasn't able to capture an image of the landing attempt. It would have had to go long for Opportunity to successfully image it.
Post by: Star One on 10/21/2016 05:50 pm
Post by: tolis on 10/21/2016 05:58 pm
There are two small dark spots just at the right edge of the frame (at the lander's 2 o'clock position) that may be it.
They are not obvious in the "before" frame.
Post by: Xentry on 10/21/2016 06:03 pm
Can anyone extrapolate an impact speed based on the available information, especially given the width of the crater?We can extrapolate based on the estimated descent speed prior to parachute separation (~80m/s), the period of thruster activation (~4s), maximum thrust (~3600N) and lander wet mass (~600kg, although it probably was quite a bit less at parachute release because of all the separation events until then), Mars gravity (~3.7m/s2) and the period during which Schiaparelli was apparently in free fall (~20s). The impact velocity would then be:
80-3600/600*4+3.7*20 = ~145m/s = 522km/h
EDIT: added comment on Schiaparelli mass at parachute release, added units and corrected a typo in the formula (the result is unchanged)
Post by: Archibald on 10/21/2016 06:18 pm
Quote
We can extrapolate based on the estimated descent speed prior to parachute separation (~80m/s), the period of thruster activation (~4s), maximum thrust (~3600N) and lander wet mass (~600kg, although it probably was quite a bit less at parachute release because of all the separation events until then), Mars gravity (~3.7m/s2) and the period during which Schiaparelli was apparently in free fall (~20s). The impact velocity would then be:
80-3600/600*4+3.7*20 = ~145m/s = 522km/h
Quote
Schiaparelli fell from a height of 2-4 km
Minimal mistake, maximum consequences. Welcome to Mars EDL challenge.
Seriously, better to have Shiaparelli crash rather than ExoMars. Hopefully lessons will be learned.
Post by: DaveS on 10/21/2016 06:24 pm
ExoMars is the name of the program, not the orbiter. The orbiter is just the Trace Gas Orbiter or TGO for short. Both the TGO and EDM are part of ExoMars 2016. The rover was ExoMars 2018 but it got delayed to the next Mars launch window in 2020 so it got renamed to ExoMars 2020.QuoteWe can extrapolate based on the estimated descent speed prior to parachute separation (~80m/s), the period of thruster activation (~4s), maximum thrust (~3600N) and lander wet mass (~600kg, although it probably was quite a bit less at parachute release because of all the separation events until then), Mars gravity (~3.7m/s2) and the period during which Schiaparelli was apparently in free fall (~20s). The impact velocity would then be:
80-3600/600*4+3.7*20 = ~145m/s = 522km/hQuoteSchiaparelli fell from a height of 2-4 km
Minimal mistake, maximum consequences. Welcome to Mars EDL challenge.
Seriously, better to have Shiaparelli crash rather than ExoMars. Hopefully lessons will be learned.
Post by: Archibald on 10/21/2016 06:45 pm
ExoMars is the name of the program, not the orbiter. The orbiter is just the Trace Gas Orbiter or TGO for short. Both the TGO and EDM are part of ExoMars 2016. The rover was ExoMars 2018 but it got delayed to the next Mars launch window in 2020 so it got renamed to ExoMars 2020.QuoteWe can extrapolate based on the estimated descent speed prior to parachute separation (~80m/s), the period of thruster activation (~4s), maximum thrust (~3600N) and lander wet mass (~600kg, although it probably was quite a bit less at parachute release because of all the separation events until then), Mars gravity (~3.7m/s2) and the period during which Schiaparelli was apparently in free fall (~20s). The impact velocity would then be:
80-3600/600*4+3.7*20 = ~145m/s = 522km/hQuoteSchiaparelli fell from a height of 2-4 km
Minimal mistake, maximum consequences. Welcome to Mars EDL challenge.
Seriously, better to have Shiaparelli crash rather than ExoMars. Hopefully lessons will be learned.
thanks not lecturing me. I do know what the rover is, Exomars 2020. This thread needs a) serious cleanup and b)a lot of people calming down
Post by: Mighty-T on 10/21/2016 07:15 pm
Decent crater/blast radius with the MRO images.. Final impact splash about 25m x 25m round. Parachute seen about 900m south of Schiaparelli's crater.
Well, looks like Mars has two "Schiaparelli" craters now...
Post by: redliox on 10/21/2016 07:31 pm
I don't think I could ever call Schiaparelli even a "partial success" (which frankly is just a PR-positive-spin on failure), but I will say in light of Beagle 2 and NASA's Mars 98 missions (orbiter, lander, and penetrators) it's an improvement. ESA can at least pinpoint which point the lander's mission began to unravel...in similar fashion to how MRO pinpointed its black smear on Mars. :-\
Two suggestions for ESA: 1) Keep trying, you're at least having slightly better luck than the Soviets did. 2) Talk to NASA again for more direct assistance.
Post by: meekGee on 10/21/2016 07:33 pm
That's like saying the Titanic was 75% successful because it made it 3/4 of the way to New York.
This is a straw man argument
Only 80% straw.
Post by: wxmeddler on 10/21/2016 08:09 pm
Decent crater/blast radius with the MRO images.. Final impact splash about 25m x 25m round. Parachute seen about 900m south of Schiaparelli's crater.
Well, looks like Mars has two "Schiaparelli" craters now...
Clearly the lander became self-aware in it's harrowing descent and decided that it wanted to emulate it's namesake.
Post by: tolis on 10/21/2016 08:17 pm
If I were one, I wouldn't take kindly to umpteen kg of hydrazine
landing on top of me. But then again, maybe they drink the stuff.. ;D
Post by: Nigeluna on 10/21/2016 08:25 pm
Beagle 2 was knocked up by a group of British enthusiasts effectively in the evenings and weekends until very late in its development. It had minimal industrial support, except by goodwill, and was launched almost as an after-thought for political reasons. Everything was known to be marginal. Yet it almost worked and it seems that only a baulky deployment system, possibly due to the minimalistic airbags, stopped it opening completely and hence prevented comms. This was in the true tradition of the British amateur who almost makes it in an attempt to inspire others.
EDM was developed with full industrial support as part of a reasonably well funded international project (except for the US although I believe they contributed much expertise) from the outset. Definitely not developed on Colin Pilinger's kitchen table. Everything is reported to have worked well except, it seems, for the brain that seems to have gone a little crazy. Reports indicate that the relevant sensors were all providing the data that was expected therefore it seems to have been faulty digestion rather that tainted food.
I find myself hoping that the Airbus I fly and the reactors a few tens of miles from me have higher reliability in the control system department. Actually I'm sure they have but it would be nice if ESA find the failure was caused by something unforseeable. This is more in hope than expectation though. I await further news of the investigation with interest.
Post by: jarnu on 10/21/2016 08:27 pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/thomas_appere/status/789540027273445376
It seems the source is : http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/p/4528/1P530160317EFFCTARP2857L6M1.HTML
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/21/2016 08:51 pm
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 10/21/2016 08:54 pm
Post by: curtquarquesso on 10/21/2016 09:00 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/21/2016 09:37 pm
Pure especulation:
https://mobile.twitter.com/thomas_appere/status/789540027273445376
It seems the source is : http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/p/4528/1P530160317EFFCTARP2857L6M1.HTML
I can't find where I saw it, but it was already seen to be coincident with camera specks in other photos, which the enhancement makes appear something that aren't.
Post by: eeergo on 10/21/2016 09:43 pm
Based on where the lander impacted inside the landing ellipse, do we have any estimates on how far Opportunity is from the crash site? As the crow flies or based on a plausible transit path? Obviously, there are no plans to visit the crash site by NASA. I'm just entertaining my curiosity more than anything.
If you look at the large scale picture posted by GalacticPenguin here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31368.msg1602074#msg1602074 (second attached image, top section), the large dark crater on the right hand side of the picture is Endurance, on whose western rim Opportunity is roving right now. To give a sense of scale of the whole roved distance, take this map with mostly all of Opportunity's trek: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/PIA19154oppmarch2015.jpg/600px-PIA19154oppmarch2015.jpg
It's about 40-50 km as the crow flies.
Post by: redliox on 10/21/2016 09:46 pm
Clearly the lander became self-aware in it's harrowing descent and decided that it wanted to emulate it's namesake.
Exactly like the whale in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...
...although if it was ALSO aware of Beagle 2's fate I think it'd be saying...
(http://i.imgur.com/Y77PwIW.gif)
Post by: eeergo on 10/21/2016 09:54 pm
Quote from: ESAoperations
orbit insertion near perfect: Now on 101000X3691km orbit (4.2 day), well within planned initial orbit - ready for science
Largest ever Mars probe, worth remembering.
Post by: BrakeFirst on 10/21/2016 10:31 pm
...the large dark crater on the right hand side of the picture is Endurance, on whose western rim Opportunity is roving right now.
Opportunity is actually reported to be at Endeavour crater, the large one at the southern end of the trek.
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/status.html#opportunity
Endurance crater was at the beginning in 2004. If Opportunity had travelled north for its 43+ km to date, it would be very close to the impact site. I'm happier that Oppy is to the south and safely out of harms way.
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/21/2016 10:43 pm
Clearly the lander became self-aware in it's harrowing descent and decided that it wanted to emulate it's namesake.
Exactly like the whale in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...
...although if it was ALSO aware of Beagle 2's fate I think it'd be saying...
(http://i.imgur.com/Y77PwIW.gif)
Perhaps 'So long, and thanks for all the Euros...'
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/21/2016 10:46 pm
I read in this blog (http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2016/10/17/la-suerte-esta-echada-asi-llegara-schiaparelli-a-marte/) that Schiaparelli's mass, once without the thermal shield, is about ~300 kg and its diameter 1.65 m.
Source (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html) from NASA.
Using this data:
g_m = 3.71 # Gravity on mars [m/s2]
C_d = 0.46 # Drag coefficient [-]
r = 1.65/2.0 # Radius [m]
A = np.pi*r**2.0 # Area [m2]
rho = 0.02 # Atmosphere density [kg/m3]
mass = 300.0 # Probe mass [kg]
T = 3600.0 # RR thrust [N]
t_T = 4.0 # RR burning time [s*]
v0 = 80.0 # Initial velocity [m/s]
t_ini = 0 # Initial time [s*]
t_fin = 20 # Final time [s*]
h = 10000 # Integration step [-]
V_impact = 102.6 m/s (369.4 km/h)
Feel free to correct any parameter that you consider not accurate enough.
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/21/2016 10:48 pm
I hope there were no martian microbes under that impact site.
If I were one, I wouldn't take kindly to umpteen kg of hydrazine
landing on top of me. But then again, maybe they drink the stuff.. ;D
One of the unfortunate issues with the Viking landers was, indeed, the rather poisonous nature of their landing rockets - a bit of an own goal for a spacecraft equipped with life-detecting experiments...
At least SkyCrane has the decency to run away and hide in a (new) crater having delivered a shiny rover (or two) to the surface!
Post by: eeergo on 10/21/2016 10:50 pm
...the large dark crater on the right hand side of the picture is Endurance, on whose western rim Opportunity is roving right now.
Opportunity is actually reported to be at Endeavour crater, the large one at the southern end of the trek.
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/status.html#opportunity
Endurance crater was at the beginning in 2004. If Opportunity had travelled north for its 43+ km to date, it would be very close to the impact site. I'm happier that Oppy is to the south and safely out of harms way.
You're right, I meant Endeavour (these pesky "End-" craters :) )
Post by: Bob Shaw on 10/21/2016 11:05 pm
Some maths here, some there and voilà, close to 100 % of success.
That's like saying the Titanic was 75% successful because it made it 3/4 of the way to New York.
The Titanic was, in some ways, a great success - it ensured that future passenger liners would actually carry sufficient lifeboats, and this undoubtedly saved more lives than were lost. It doesn't make the event less tragic, but *does* put things into perspective. The current failure to land a well-funded ESA engineering demonstrator on Mars will also help ensure that future missions are more likely to succeed. The only actual failure here is the way that the ESA brass dealt with the event, which was... ...weak.
Post by: denis on 10/22/2016 12:20 am
I find myself hoping that the Airbus I fly and the reactors a few tens of miles from me have higher reliability in the control system department. Actually I'm sure they have but it would be nice if ESA find the failure was caused by something unforseeable. This is more in hope than expectation though. I await further news of the investigation with interest.
The difficulty of AOCS / space GNC is that you cannot test it before you fly it, so it's validated only in simulations.
If you used incorrect assumptions or didn't take into account some effect, you might think it's all fine and it fails in real life. This is particularly true for EDL, where there are large uncertainties.
For the autopilot of a plane, you can do test it in realistic conditions with pilots ready to take over if it goes crazy...
Does anyone know who designed the GNC ? I saw somewhere that GMV were involved with the GNC software, but it was not clear to me if it's only the software implementation or the full GNC design and validation.
Post by: savuporo on 10/22/2016 12:24 am
The difficulty of AOCS / space GNC is that you cannot test it before you fly it..
That's kind of what Schiaparelli was doing for the next landing :)
Post by: savuporo on 10/22/2016 05:14 am
Sometimes dozens of channels of telemetry could be overshadowed by the value of one camera.
While we wait for further updates , reminder that Schiaparelli carried a camera, DECA package:
http://www.oip.be/en/category_123.aspx
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/48898-edm-science-payload/
Quote
DECA will start taking images shortly after the front-shield of Schiaparelli has been jettisoned during the journey through the Martian atmosphere to the planet's surface. It will take 15 images at 1.5 s intervals, and these images will be stored in local memory. To avoid electrostatic discharges affecting the instrument, there will be a delay of several minutes after Schiaparelli has landed on the surface of Mars, before the data are read out by Schiaparelli's computer and subsequently downlinked to Earth.
This data is obviously lost, and so is plenty of other lander package science data.
Quote
The selected investigations consist of a surface payload, called DREAMS, which will operate on the surface of Mars for 2–8 sols, and an investigation known as AMELIA, for entry and descent science investigations using the spacecraft engineering sensors.
A separate instrumentation package, COMARS+, will monitor the pressure, surface temperature and heat flux on the back cover of Schiaparelli as it passes through the atmosphere.
In addition, the descent camera (DECA) on Schiaparelli will image the landing site as it approaches the surface, as well as providing a measure of the atmosphere’s transparency. DECA is the re-named flight spare of the visual monitoring camera which flew on Herschel.
A compact array of laser retroreflectors, known as INRRI, is attached to the zenith-facing surface of Schiaparelli. This can be used as a target for future Mars orbiters to laser-locate the module.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/22/2016 05:39 am
Quote
This data is obviously lost, and so is plenty of other lander package science data.
It is believed that the AMELIA data was successfully downlinked.
Post by: savuporo on 10/22/2016 05:47 am
QuoteThis data is obviously lost, and so is plenty of other lander package science data.
It is believed that the AMELIA data was successfully downlinked.
Yes i saw that too, https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/789021006065270784
Quote
McCoy: The #AMELIA instrument team believe that most of their data were collected. We'll see #ExoMarshttp://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2016/1020-exomars-schiaparelli-analysis-to-continue.html
Quote
Don McCoy, ExoMars project manager, said that the AMELIA (Atmospheric Mars Entry and Landing Investigation and Analysis) instrument team believed most of their data were collected. AMELIA co-principal investigator Stephen Lewis tweeted that 600MB of Schiaparelli data had been received and that 99% of the test was complete.
I'm guessing they didn't need higher sampling rate data that didn't fit on the live telemetry link
Post by: b0objunior on 10/22/2016 05:56 am
You might want to read again.QuoteThis data is obviously lost, and so is plenty of other lander package science data.
It is believed that the AMELIA data was successfully downlinked.
Post by: jarnu on 10/22/2016 06:46 am
Pure especulation:
https://mobile.twitter.com/thomas_appere/status/789540027273445376
It seems the source is : http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/p/4528/1P530160317EFFCTARP2857L6M1.HTML
I can't find where I saw it, but it was already seen to be coincident with camera specks in other photos, which the enhancement makes appear something that aren't.
This is the info about what you said: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2016/10191525-brief-update-opportunitys.html
Post by: rweede on 10/22/2016 08:13 am
Now you're only finding excuses. Come on, it was a failure and they have to deal with it. It isn't the first one and won't be the last, but evading facts is just stupid.
That's like saying the Titanic was 75% successful because it made it 3/4 of the way to New York.
The Titanic was, in some ways, a great success - it ensured that future passenger liners would actually carry sufficient lifeboats, and this undoubtedly saved more lives than were lost. It doesn't make the event less tragic, but *does* put things into perspective. The current failure to land a well-funded ESA engineering demonstrator on Mars will also help ensure that future missions are more likely to succeed. The only actual failure here is the way that the ESA brass dealt with the event, which was... ...weak.
What's all this about the Titanic? The Titanic was no "technical demonstrator" without passengers, for demonstrating the feasibility of transatlantic shipping with a steam engine. Challenger was a Titanic. This is more like Otto Lilienthal crashing his first glider ...
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/22/2016 08:50 am
I'm honestly surprised that people are making a lot of fuss about a small lander and are quick to dismiss the whole mission as an utter failure... when the majority of the scientifically significant instruments are onboard the orbiter. Regardless of whether you agree with Woerner's rough calculations, science has gained more than it has lost. ESA's getting the chance to solve the methane mystery, Russia is getting the chance to refly some Mars 96 and Phobos-Grunt instruments, and the technology demonstrator is giving ESA some hard experimental data.
About ten years ago there were a lot of scientists like Robert L. Park, Steven Weinberg who complained rightfully that there was a lot of science cut from the International Space Station like the Centrifuge module, and also complained wrongly that the focus shifted on just completing the ISS and testing large hardware in space. The ISS got a lot of bad press about broken toilets, buggy laptops and a glitchy urine recycler. But it IS providing hard data about large structures in space.
It took me some time and only recently I started to understand (only after I got involved in real research) than in engineering and science sometimes "don't" are just as important as "do's".
Post by: mcgyver on 10/22/2016 10:12 am
A little reminiscent of Mars 6 in 1974 ....... that got very close to the ground and then contact was lost.Did they ever find out what happened exactly?
What do you guys think?Images taken by opportunity (http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/opportunity/pancam/2016-10-19/) have all timestamps totally not matching with EDL timeline. Why?
Looks like a lander with parachute to me. ???
Or is timestamp encoded in filename? Or inside image?
Timestamps: 14:29
Atmosphere entry: 14:42 Mars, 14:52 Earth.
Quote
Fortunately for the ESA engineering team, the TGO orbiter recorded up to 600 megabytes of data from the Schiaparelli's entry into the Martian atmosphere and its descent to the surface.It would be a great accomplishment... but is a realistic assesment? 600 MB in 6 minutes?!?
Quote
There is some strange irony comparing Schiaparelli with Beagle 2I see a strong advantage of Exomars EDM vs Beagle 2: as far as I know, there is no telemetry at all available of EDL phase for Beagle 2. Is that correct?
Quote
"Learn to communicate"
Two suggestions for ESA
ESA webcast/conference/whatelse always suck.
I followed EDL in realtime... by ESA official twitter account! If they can type a tweet, can't they show it in a webcast?
Additionally, "live" webcast started at 15:00GMT... just 2 minutes AFTER landing signal (should have) arrived to earth!!
What about a parachute rip-offWithoud telemetries, all and the opposite could be true.
Suppose one of the pyros which unlocks the backshell did not function: the backshell got only partially detached, causing a "descent attitude lost" and an unpredictable trajectory/attitude, maybe a lander rolling down in freefall...
Were there any accelerometers/gyroscopes/IMUs onboard?
excessive lithobraking maneuverThis ELM acronym fits in same family of RUD acronym. ;D
I found an intersting "news and data collector" site:
http://jumpjack.wixsite.com/exomars (http://jumpjack.wixsite.com/exomars)
From the site:
Entry-Descent-landing detailed timeline (mars time, totale elapsed time, time to landing, single phase time, description, Earth Received Time):14:42:18 00:00:00 00:05:53 00:00:00 Atmospheric Entry Starts (Altitude: 121km, Speed: 5.83km/s) 14:52:04
14:43:30 00:01:12 00:04:41 00:01:12 Peak Heating - 1750°C (Altitude: 45km, Speed: 5.3km/s) 14:53:16
14:45:39 00:03:21 00:02:32 00:02:09 Parachute Deployment (Altitude: 11km, Speed: 472m/s) 14:55:25
14:46:19 00:04:01 00:01:52 00:00:40 Heat Shield Jettison, Radar Activation (Altitude: 7km, Speed: 89m/s) 14:56:05
14:47:20 00:05:02 00:00:51 00:01:01 Descent Camera Starts Imaging (15 Images) 14:57:0x
14:47:40 00:05:22 00:00:31 00:00:20 Backshell Jettison (Altitude: 1.2km, Speed: 66.5m/s) 14:57:26
14:47:41 00:05:23 00:00:30 00:00:01 Landing Thruster Ignition (Altitude: 1.1km, Speed: 69.5m/s) 14:57:27
14:48:10 00:05:52 00:00:01 00:00:29 Landing Thruster Cutoff (Altitude: 2m, Speed: 1.1m/s) 14:57:56
14:48:11 00:05:53 00:00:00 00:00:01 Touchdown 14:57:57
GMRT report (CEST time, earth received, twitter timestamp):
Post by: Star One on 10/22/2016 10:17 am
This discussion about comparing a small technology demonstrator to Titanic is pathetic. The word "stupid" doesn't even begin to describe it. It's absolutely retarded.
I'm honestly surprised that people are making a lot of fuss about a small lander and are quick to dismiss the whole mission as an utter failure... when the majority of the scientifically significant instruments are onboard the orbiter. Regardless of whether you agree with Woerner's rough calculations, science has gained more than it has lost. ESA's getting the chance to solve the methane mystery, Russia is getting the chance to refly some Mars 96 and Phobos-Grunt instruments, and the technology demonstrator is giving ESA some hard experimental data.
About ten years ago there were a lot of scientists like Robert L. Park, Steven Weinberg who complained rightfully that there was a lot of science cut from the International Space Station like the Centrifuge module, and also complained wrongly that the focus shifted on just completing the ISS and testing large hardware in space. The ISS got a lot of bad press about broken toilets, buggy laptops and a glitchy urine recycler. But it IS providing hard data about large structures in space.
It took me some time and only recently I started to understand (only after I got involved in real research) than in engineering and science sometimes "don't" are just as important as "do's".
I've noted elsewhere online people going on and on about the lander failing and blindly ignoring the success of TGO, when in fact the majority of the mission both instruments and science was with TGO, so why keep obsessing about the failed lander?
Post by: denis on 10/22/2016 10:37 am
Exactly ! Although I read somewhere here that the EDL design is quite different (but I don't know what's the difference)The difficulty of AOCS / space GNC is that you cannot test it before you fly it..
That's kind of what Schiaparelli was doing for the next landing :)
Post by: mfck on 10/22/2016 10:45 am
This discussion about comparing a small technology demonstrator to Titanic is pathetic. The word "stupid" doesn't even begin to describe it. It's absolutely retarded.
I'm honestly surprised that people are making a lot of fuss about a small lander and are quick to dismiss the whole mission as an utter failure... when the majority of the scientifically significant instruments are onboard the orbiter. Regardless of whether you agree with Woerner's rough calculations, science has gained more than it has lost. ESA's getting the chance to solve the methane mystery, Russia is getting the chance to refly some Mars 96 and Phobos-Grunt instruments, and the technology demonstrator is giving ESA some hard experimental data.
About ten years ago there were a lot of scientists like Robert L. Park, Steven Weinberg who complained rightfully that there was a lot of science cut from the International Space Station like the Centrifuge module, and also complained wrongly that the focus shifted on just completing the ISS and testing large hardware in space. The ISS got a lot of bad press about broken toilets, buggy laptops and a glitchy urine recycler. But it IS providing hard data about large structures in space.
It took me some time and only recently I started to understand (only after I got involved in real research) than in engineering and science sometimes "don't" are just as important as "do's".
I've noted elsewhere online people going on and on about the lander failing and blindly ignoring the success of TGO, when in fact the majority of the mission both instruments and science was with TGO, so why keep obsessing about the failed lander?
Because understanding a success requires education and experience, while ridiculing a failure is easy and instant.
Post by: hopalong on 10/22/2016 11:19 am
This discussion about comparing a small technology demonstrator to Titanic is pathetic. The word "stupid" doesn't even begin to describe it. It's absolutely retarded.
I'm honestly surprised that people are making a lot of fuss about a small lander and are quick to dismiss the whole mission as an utter failure... when the majority of the scientifically significant instruments are onboard the orbiter. Regardless of whether you agree with Woerner's rough calculations, science has gained more than it has lost. ESA's getting the chance to solve the methane mystery, Russia is getting the chance to refly some Mars 96 and Phobos-Grunt instruments, and the technology demonstrator is giving ESA some hard experimental data.
About ten years ago there were a lot of scientists like Robert L. Park, Steven Weinberg who complained rightfully that there was a lot of science cut from the International Space Station like the Centrifuge module, and also complained wrongly that the focus shifted on just completing the ISS and testing large hardware in space. The ISS got a lot of bad press about broken toilets, buggy laptops and a glitchy urine recycler. But it IS providing hard data about large structures in space.
It took me some time and only recently I started to understand (only after I got involved in real research) than in engineering and science sometimes "don't" are just as important as "do's".
I've noted elsewhere online people going on and on about the lander failing and blindly ignoring the success of TGO, when in fact the majority of the mission both instruments and science was with TGO, so why keep obsessing about the failed lander?
Because understanding a success requires education and experience, while ridiculing a failure is easy and instant.
Because to the media, landers are sexy, orbiters not so sexy. I know that it is wrong, but that is the mainstream media for you.
Post by: llanitedave on 10/22/2016 04:15 pm
Post by: eeergo on 10/22/2016 05:59 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/22/2016 06:43 pm
Post by: meekGee on 10/22/2016 08:33 pm
Everything else about the science capabilities of either one is true, but what you're noticing is about the challenge and about the future of more landings.
Post by: Eosterwine on 10/22/2016 08:44 pm
Ground views and field science beat orbital photos and distance observations just because of they're more easily relatable to, and possibly easier to understand for a layperson in a given field.
Neither of which Schiaparelli would have returned even if successful.
Post by: asmi on 10/23/2016 01:39 am
Two suggestions for ESA: 1) Keep trying, you're at least having slightly better luck than the Soviets did.Actually no - Soviets did manage to soft-land there AND transmit something back - all that almost 46 years ago. And it was landing during storm too.
Post by: redliox on 10/23/2016 01:47 am
Two suggestions for ESA: 1) Keep trying, you're at least having slightly better luck than the Soviets did.Actually no - Soviets did manage to soft-land there AND transmit something back - all that almost 46 years ago. And it was landing during storm too.
Rubbing salt in their wounds eh?
ESA still has potential, but apparently refinement required at least for landing. Oh well...let's start shifting attention on TGO now.
Post by: asmi on 10/23/2016 01:59 am
Rubbing salt in their wounds eh?Nope, just pointing out factual error.
ESA still has potential, but apparently refinement required at least for landing. Oh well...let's start shifting attention on TGO now.Yes they do. Failures always teach us something. As long as we're willing to learn, they are not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.
Post by: savuporo on 10/23/2016 04:51 am
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/3_Portigliotti_ExoMars_GNC.pdf
There are multiple collaborating companies involved, with Thales as the prime integrator, but Deimos Elecnor (http://www.elecnor-deimos.com/elecnor-deimos-exomars/), GMV (http://www.gmv.com/en/Company/Communication/News/2016/10/ExoMars.html), SENER (http://www.engineeringandconstruction.sener/en/press-releases/sener-technology-returns-to-mars-with-exomars-2016-and-2018), RUAG having been involved in development and verification of the overall GNC systems. ESA is very international
Note: list below is from 2010 and slightly outdated, the collaborators have changed a bit. I believe the parachute wasn't Aero Sekur but Vorticity Systems
Post by: savuporo on 10/23/2016 05:08 am
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/56774-europe-s-new-era-of-mars-exploration/#
Post by: sdsds on 10/23/2016 05:43 am
Of course I give the story no credence except there's this well-regarded internet forum that specializes in spaceflight and the participants from the United States seem to be in some sort of heated debate with the participants from Europe about whether the mission can be called a success or not. So maybe the claims of animosity that would lead to sabotage aren't all that distant from reality?
:-/
Post by: mfck on 10/23/2016 11:43 am
I'm not going to link to any of them, but there are now multiple media outlets carrying a story suggesting that (wait for it) the United States sabotaged the mission. Because otherwise Europe would discover there was life on Mars. Because that's what all successful Mars landers do: discover life.
...
Shades of Rogosin and Peskov. From Russia with Love.
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/24/2016 01:43 pm
Original version: http://scilogs.spektrum.de/go-for-launch/schiaparelli-landung-fehlschlag-auf-der-zielgeraden/ (in German)
Google translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscilogs.spektrum.de%2Fgo-for-launch%2Fschiaparelli-landung-fehlschlag-auf-der-zielgeraden%2F (pretty understandable IMO)
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 02:40 pm
Interesting entry about what could possibly had happened to Schiaparelli.
Original version: http://scilogs.spektrum.de/go-for-launch/schiaparelli-landung-fehlschlag-auf-der-zielgeraden/ (in German)
Google translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscilogs.spektrum.de%2Fgo-for-launch%2Fschiaparelli-landung-fehlschlag-auf-der-zielgeraden%2F (pretty understandable IMO)
Great find! The author is the responsible at ESA for the Exomars mission analysis, so he should definitely know...
Still, the mystery right now is really why the onboard system took the wrong (abnormally early) decisions both at parachute release and thruster shutdown, and that's only going to be resolved after an investigation at industry level I think. Anyone with more information on this, please post!
Post by: mcgyver on 10/24/2016 03:00 pm
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 03:23 pm
I don't see anything new/different from what I read on @esaoperations twitter account 4 days ago. :(
Pretty much. Except re-summarizing the events again. The first observed anomaly is still jettisoning the parachute with back cover way too early.
Hard to explain this with anything than GNC or electronics failure, if all sensor telemetry streams look nominal. EDM electronics were somewhat complicated by the way. I gather 2 AT697F's, a number or RTAX-2000 FPGAs, FreeScale MC9S12XEP100 just counting the computing bits, but not all of these were on critical loop for the landing.
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 04:31 pm
Hard to explain this with anything than GNC or electronics failure, if all sensor telemetry streams look nominal.And even then, we know that the telemetry does not represent all of the data used onboard; some sensor data was probably processed but not transmitted to MRO/TGO (e.g. full-speed IMU data by itself is probably >>100Hz).
As a result, there may be events that were actually triggered by outlier sensor data that hasn't been transmitted, and therefore the chain of events may be quite hard to reconstruct.
IMO should be simple enough to make sure that either radar data was erroneous, or the GNC onboard software made the wrong decision. In any case I am shocked that after so much testing, there is still a significant possibility that the onboard system thinks the spacecraft is on the ground when it's flying at >2km altitude.
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 04:46 pm
Isn't this incompatible with the GNC deciding for parachute release between 2-4km, when no terrain-relative data is available yet?
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 04:56 pm
By the way, I was just going over the slides from savuporo a few posts up. On slide 18 they point out that while the radar is switched on at ~6km altitude, it is only "in the loop" (which I think means, that's when consistent radar data is achieved, and navigation is "authorized" to start processing the radar data along with IMU data) below 2km altitude.
Isn't this incompatible with the GNC deciding for parachute release between 2-4km, when no terrain-relative data is available yet?
I read through a bunch of slides and papers over the weekend. RDA signal was supposed to declared stable at around 2.5km altitude. This doc has more detail:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/p507.pdf
Post by: mcgyver on 10/24/2016 05:22 pm
Hard to explain this with anything than GNC or electronics failure, if all sensor telemetry streams look nominal.In any case I am shocked that after so much testing, there is still a significant possibility that the onboard system thinks the spacecraft is on the ground when it's flying at >2km altitude.
Uh oh...
I found a "flaw" in all hypotesis, news and tweets following ESA press conference held on october 20th....
What data say is:
Speed at end of the parachute phase was off nominal. (source (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/Speed at end of the parachute phase was off nominal.))
Everybody "decided" that this is due to Schiaparelli error and premature parachute jettison.
BUT
If there were no errors at all? :o ???
What else could have caused too high speed at the moment of parachute jettisoning, apart from just arbitrarily jettisoning it prematurely?
A ripped/mulfunctioning parachute!
Possible scenario:
* Parachute opening properly triggered by sensors (altitude/pressure/speed/deceleration/whatelse).
* Parachute defective opening.
* EDM cannot decelerate down to 200 km/h as expected (i.e. within specified altitude).
* Parachute/backshell jettisoned anyway (=prematurely) due to incoming ground: Backshell Evasive Maneuvre requires backshell to be jettisoned well before touchdown, to avoid interference with lander.
* Retrorockets fire.
* 29 seconds to engine cutoff... 28... 27...
* GROUND PROXIMITY ERROR! Safe landing is not possible! Abort powered descent! Immediately start Contingency Data Transmission before it's too late! 19... 18... 17... upload! upload! :o :o 16... 15... 14... :o :o
* CRASH!!
Loss Of Sigmnal happens 50s before schedule just because all happened faster due to malfunctioning chute.
Nobody to blame.
Parachutes can sometime fail.
Sh*t happens.
----------
Is this a possible scenario? Was a malfunctioning parachute included in the software? Does it exist a Contingency Data Transmission routine in the OnBoard Software? ???
Some math will help determining if available reports on timings are consistent with my scenario:
* Retrorockets fired for 3-4 seconds
* Transmission duration after engine cutoff: 19 seconds
* Touchdown (at whatever speed...): 50 seconds before schedule.
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 05:24 pm
I read through a bunch of slides and papers over the weekend. RDA signal was supposed to declared stable at around 2.5km altitude. This doc has more detail:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/p507.pdf
Interesting. So the Navigation has about 7-8s (between 2.5km and 2km at ~70m/s) to converge after radar data starts being processed. It looks like there is a buffer between 2.5km and 2km when the GNC cannot yet rely on the closed-loop navigation estimates for event triggering purposes.
The next line after that basically says that after 2km and until ~1.4km (another ~10-20s) the GNC is computing when to separate according to the altitude-velocity combination and assuming a profile with 50% of the available T/W for deceleration (this last statement is actually elsewhere in the text and the presentation linked previously).
Why then would people at ESA say parachute release was "way too early", and "between 2-4km", when nominally the GNC would only be assessing closed-loop estimates below 2km, if this radar data convergence -> navigation convergence -> separation trigger assessment sequence had worked out nominally?
I think it is reasonable to deduce that the "way too early" - or even worse the "2-4km altitude" classification has been added to their declarations because the GNC wasn't even supposed to be monitoring altitude-velocity then. We'll see.
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/24/2016 05:43 pm
Hard to explain this with anything than GNC or electronics failure, if all sensor telemetry streams look nominal.In any case I am shocked that after so much testing, there is still a significant possibility that the onboard system thinks the spacecraft is on the ground when it's flying at >2km altitude.
Uh oh...
I found a "flaw" in all hypotesis, news and tweets following ESA press conference held on october 20th....
What data say is:
Speed at end of the parachute phase was off nominal. (source (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/Speed at end of the parachute phase was off nominal.))
Everybody "decided" that this is due to Schiaparelli error and premature parachute jettison.
BUT
If there were no errors at all? :o ???
What else could have caused too high speed at the moment of parachute jettisoning, apart from just arbitrarily jettisoning it prematurely?
A ripped/mulfunctioning parachute!
...
I also thought about that. A misleading scenario that wrongly triggered the default events. We must remember that in the Italian interview with Andrea Accomazzo, he says that the retro rockets burn for 3 seconds and then the probe suddenly switches to "landing" mode.
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 06:08 pm
Also, it was mentioned that some of the RDA telemetry came back after switch-on, it would be real interesting to know what it was showing. In case of ripped parachute, it would have been clearly evident in the stream.
The point about full sampling rate data not being available to analyze is also valid, it's still entirely possible that something in high rate sensor input data ( vibration-induced errors or who knows what ) that bypassed filtering threw GNC off, but it was spiky and didn't get back to ground.
Post by: Anabasis on 10/24/2016 06:18 pm
Source is this Deutschlandfunk interview:
http://ondemand-mp3.dradio.de/file/dradio/2016/10/24/exomars_was_wurde_aus_der_sonde_schiaparelli_interview_dlf_20161024_1641_b947cedc.mp3
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/24/2016 06:18 pm
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/schiaparelli-landing-data-exomars-2020-rover/
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/24/2016 06:19 pm
http://thespacereview.com/article/3090/1
Post by: mcgyver on 10/24/2016 06:26 pm
I've just made a little integrator in Python to calculate the final velocity at the moment of impact including drag.
Do you think you could also calculate the difference in timing w.r.t. schedule due to mis-opening parachute?
Nominal parachute parameters:
* Diameter: 12m (Area = 113m2)
* Drag (Cd): 0.4
* Full mass at parachute opening: 600 kg
* Nominal parachute opening: Mach 1.95 (=669 m/s)
* Heat Shield jettison time/parachute: 40 s
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/p507.pdf (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/p507.pdf)
Known data:
* Retrorockets fired for 3-4 seconds
* Transmission duration after engine cutoff: 19 seconds
* Touchdown (at whatever speed...): 50 seconds before schedule.
Your other data:
Quote
g_m = 3.71 # Gravity on mars [m/s2]C_d = 0.46 # Drag coefficient [-]r = 1.65/2.0 # Radius [m]A = np.pi*r**2.0 # Area [m2]
rho = 0.02 # Atmosphere density [kg/m3]mass = 300.0 # Probe mass [kg]
T = 3600.0 # RR thrust [N]
t_T = 4.0 # RR burning time [s*]
v0 = 80.0 # Initial velocity [m/s]
t_ini = 0 # Initial time [s*]
t_fin = 20 # Final time [s*]
h = 10000 # Integration step [-]
Parachute initial drag force:
Fd = 0.5 * rho * Cd * A * v^2 = 0.5 * 0.02 * 0.4 * 113 * 669 = 202369 kg*m/s2 (???)
rho = 0.02
Cd < 0.4 (0.4 = nominally operating parachute)
A = 113 m2
v = 669 m/s
Initial EDM weight:
600 kg
Fw = 3.71 * 600 = 2226 kg*m/s2
Weight after 40s (heatshield jettisoned):
300 kg
Fw = 3.71 * 300 = 1123 kg*m/s2
I would like to draw an excel plot showing the velocity changes in nominal conditions (just like the German guy did...) and real conditions, but it's a bit tricky, because I also want to add sliders to change parameters in realtime... ???
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 06:39 pm
According to Rolf Densing D/OPS ESOC the radar altimeter software timed out leading the general navigation software to believe it was already on the surface and shut off the retro thrusters.
Source is this Deutschlandfunk interview:
http://ondemand-mp3.dradio.de/file/dradio/2016/10/24/exomars_was_wurde_aus_der_sonde_schiaparelli_interview_dlf_20161024_1641_b947cedc.mp3
My German isn't that good anymore, but i didn't exactly understand it as a RDA software timeout. Auto-transcription and translation of that answer below. Still speculating IMO
Quote
Soweit wir das bisher rekonstruieren können hat die Software aus einem radar ein Messgerät mit der allgemeinen Navigations Software nicht richtig gesprochen. Es hat ein Zeichen gegeben der dazu geführt hat dass der Fallschirm etwas zu früh abgesprengt wurde und der dazu geführt hat dass das Gerät in dem Glauben war Es wäre bereits auf der Oberfläche so dass die Raketen abgeschaltet hat. Und jetzt gehen wir davon aus dass die Sonde Auszeit ca. zwei bis vier Kilometer im freien Fall abgestürzt ist. Wir hätten gerne gesehen dass die Bremsen Triebwerke dass die 60 Sekunden etwa gezündet hätten. Tatsächlich haben wir aber nur drei Sekunden gezündet. Aber das Bild fügt sich eigentlich nahtlos ineinander. Ein kleines bisschen spekulativ. Wir erwarten aber in den nächsten zwei Wochen sehr genaue aufschlüsse und Klarheit darüber was passiert ist.
Quote
As far as we can reconstruct so far, the software from a radar has not spoken properly with the general navigation software. There has been a sign which has led to the parachute being blown up too early and which led to the device believing it was already on the surface so that the rockets turned off. And now we assume that the probe timeout has crashed about two to four kilometers in free fall. We would have liked to see that the brake engines had ignited about 60 seconds. In fact, we only fired three seconds. But the picture actually fits seamlessly together. A little bit speculative. In the next two weeks, however, we expect very precise information and clarity about what has happened.
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 06:41 pm
What else could have caused too high speed at the moment of parachute jettisoning, apart from just arbitrarily jettisoning it prematurely?The sequence of events in the case of a ripped parachute (which still stabilizes the vehicle attitude, thereby providing RDA data which is good enough to trigger parachute release) would be thruster operation at full thrust until the end of transmission, not early shut down followed by 19s of free fall.
A ripped/mulfunctioning parachute!
With the powered descent supposed to last 30s, the end of transmission 50s earlier than initially planned has to mean that the RDA data that was supposedly used to trigger parachute release was obtained very, very soon after sensor was activated and probably at >>2km altitude... So even whether it was good enough RDA data by then isn't at all clear.
Post by: Anabasis on 10/24/2016 06:51 pm
My German isn't that good anymore, but i didn't exactly understand it as a RDA software timeout. Auto-transcription and translation of that answer below. Still speculating IMO
And my English isn't all to good, but let my try a literal translation of the relevant section:
"As far as we can reconstruct the software of a radar altimeter has not communicated correctly with the general navigation software. A time-out occurred that lead to the parachute being jettisoned too early and that lead to the device [the lander] thinking it was already on the surface, thus it deactivated the retro thrusters."
As native speaker it seems clear the "didn't communicate good" part was a layman explanation for the software time-out he mentioned in the following sentence.
The rest is known information, he said the lander dropped from 2-4 km, etc...
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 06:54 pm
Post by: mcgyver on 10/24/2016 07:03 pm
I wonder what the GNC computer was programmed to do in case of in-flight failure.
Ok, the SW has a lot of "IFs": if altitude>xxx, if speed <yyy, if this, if that.... But was there an "if (soft_landing_possible = false) then ..." instruction? Or this possibility was just out of scope of the algorithm?!?
Possible leasson learnt? "In case of inflight failure, send as more data as you can before crash".
Post by: denis on 10/24/2016 07:08 pm
I wonder what the GNC computer was programmed to do in case of in-flight failure.
Ok, the SW has a lot of "IFs": if altitude>xxx, if speed <yyy, if this, if that.... But was there an "if (soft_landing_possible = false) then ..." instruction? Or this possibility was just out of scope of the algorithm?!?
Possible leasson learnt? "In case of inflight failure, send as more data as you can before crash".
It was already more than probably sending as much data as possible.
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 07:09 pm
But was there an "if (soft_landing_possible = false) then ..." instruction? Or this possibility was just out of scope of the algorithm?!?I suspect the precise answer is likely "yes, but not intentionally"; for instance, in the case of "invalid" RDA data, or an apparently unforeseen event like a timeout, somehow the onboard software would set the altitude to zero, -inf or some strange value like that, which was then used by the GNC as the gospel, leading to a fateful decision...
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/24/2016 07:13 pm
Post by: denis on 10/24/2016 07:14 pm
Hmm comet lander bounces (twice) and lands in a hole. Mars lander stops engines too soon and makes a new crater. If ESA boffins are involved with ITS EDL design then I'm not going. :D
Well, nobody at ESA is designing and implementing GNC algorithms...
Post by: Paul Smith on 10/24/2016 07:24 pm
Hey look, it's a considered look at the positives, by Chris Gebhardt:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/schiaparelli-landing-data-exomars-2020-rover/
Excellent work by Chris G! There can be positives for sure!
Post by: vjkane on 10/24/2016 07:32 pm
Hmm comet lander bounces (twice) and lands in a hole.Philae, as I recall, was supposed to three mechanisms to prevent bouncing: A jet on the top to hold it down, screws, and harpoons. Has anyone seen an analysis as to why these failed?
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 07:43 pm
"As far as we can reconstruct the software of a radar altimeter has not communicated correctly with the general navigation software. A time-out occurred that lead to the parachute being jettisoned too early and that lead to the device [the lander] thinking it was already on the surface, thus it deactivated the retro thrusters."Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean RDA software stack fault. The receive timeout would have been on CTPU side, and failure could be either in custom CANOpen stack on their FPGAs, I.e. comm bus implementation, transceivers, even wiring.
As native speaker it seems clear the "didn't communicate good" part was a layman explanation for the software time-out he mentioned in the following sentence.
Also I would have expected the GNC would be designed to "wing it" close enough just based on timing, I.e. dead reckoning, if both RDA units mysteriously crap out
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/24/2016 07:55 pm
I believe it's been discussed in the Rosetta thread.Hmm comet lander bounces (twice) and lands in a hole.Philae, as I recall, was supposed to three mechanisms to prevent bouncing: A jet on the top to hold it down, screws, and harpoons. Has anyone seen an analysis as to why these failed?
Jet: failed to arm before separation, probably seal failure
Screws: comet surface too hard
Harpoons: pyro problem, believed to be either bridge wires or the explosive.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_and_Philae_one_year_since_landing_on_a_comet
Post by: mcgyver on 10/24/2016 08:03 pm
Is anybody able to use this ancient java applet for simulating parachute drag?
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/dropsim.html
I am not able to enable Java in Edge, Explorer and Chrome.
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 08:20 pm
Also I would have expected the GNC would be designed to "wing it" close enough just based on timing, I.e. dead reckoning, if both RDA units mysteriously crap outThis is actually a point where I think Exomars was poorly designed. Dead-reckoning requires a really (and I mean really) high attitude knowledge, lest the (vertical) gravity acceleration be accounted for with a slight lateral acceleration that isn't really there - leading to bad stuff down the line. What's worse, an entry mission is defined by a very dynamic environment, where high-rate IMU data integration is really required to avoid a large divergence in 3d position knowledge even after only a few minutes. Whether this is just 1km, or a few kms, the result is that even when attitude knowledge is quite good, 3d velocity knowledge is less good, and 3d position knowledge pretty much sucks. So a radio altimeter becomes essential to mission success, and is given overwhelming weight, when accounted for on a navigation filter, over the integrated altitude using dead-reckoning.
Now here's where it gets worst of all: if I'm not mistaken, there is no star tracker on EDM. And... the probe was shut down 15min after separation from TGO, leading to a complete loss of attitude knowledge during 3 days! Upon restarting the computer 75min from the Entry Point, in fact, there is an IMU calibration based on sun sensors, which can only go so far in terms of accuracy.
So Exomars was even more prone to this 3d position knowledge divergence common in an entry mission - and even less capable than other missions to "wing it" in the case of a bad RDA...
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/24/2016 08:25 pm
Do you think you could also calculate the difference in timing w.r.t. schedule due to mis-opening parachute?
Do you mean a free fall with different initial conditions? Because a ballistic reentry would require much more to code.
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 09:21 pm
Now here's where it gets worst of all: if I'm not mistaken, there is no star tracker on EDM.Dual redundant sun sensors actually. I'm pretty sure they didn't have an attitude determination issue.
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/24/2016 09:43 pm
Post by: Xentry on 10/24/2016 10:13 pm
I never said they did, I just meant that a sun sensor-based attitude initialization which is even less accurate than usual is a not a good choice for an onboard navigation which is integrating IMU data to obtain position and velocity estimates.Now here's where it gets worst of all: if I'm not mistaken, there is no star tracker on EDM.Dual redundant sun sensors actually. I'm pretty sure they didn't have an attitude determination issue.
For instance on MSL, a ~0.03deg attitude initialization error obtained using star tracker data, starting from an initial position error of about 200m at the Entry interface (both are quite amazing, by the way), resulted in the landing position calculated onboard through IMU integration being off by... about 800m.
This is not to say that landing without any terrain-relative data is ever practicable (it is not), but simply that position knowledge for Exomars was definitely worse than could have been, and that this put even more weight on radar data than would otherwise be the case.
Post by: savuporo on 10/24/2016 11:42 pm
I never said they did, I just meant that a sun sensor-based attitude initialization which is even less accurate than usual is a not a good choice for an onboard navigation which is integrating IMU data to obtain position and velocity estimates.Now here's where it gets worst of all: if I'm not mistaken, there is no star tracker on EDM.Dual redundant sun sensors actually. I'm pretty sure they didn't have an attitude determination issue.
For instance on MSL, a ~0.03deg attitude initialization error obtained using star tracker data, starting from an initial position error of about 200m at the Entry interface (both are quite amazing, by the way), resulted in the landing position calculated onboard through IMU integration being off by... about 800m.
This is not to say that landing without any terrain-relative data is ever practicable (it is not), but simply that position knowledge for Exomars was definitely worse than could have been, and that this put even more weight on radar data than would otherwise be the case.
Yes, i diagonal read your comment, sorry. But i thought the back-shell sun sensor was an active pixel sensor with <0.1 degree accuracy too. Not sure if it was much worse off than MSL.
Post by: mcgyver on 10/25/2016 08:55 am
[/font]This is what I fear. Being a test, I think the SW should have foreseen various failure scenarios rather than just nominal landing.But was there an "if (soft_landing_possible = false) then ..." instruction? Or this possibility was just out of scope of the algorithm?!?I suspect the precise answer is likely "yes, but not intentionally";
Anyway I'm worried about future manned missions. Are we so late in the schedule? Are we still testing how to land someTHING safely? How is Elon Musk supposed to land PEOPLE just within 8 years, without even NASA knowhow available?!?
Quote
Now here's where it gets worst of all: if I'm not mistaken, there is no star tracker on EDM. And... the probe was shut down 15min after separation from TGO, leading to a complete loss of attitude knowledge during 3 days! Upon restarting the computer 75min from the Entry Point, in fact, there is an IMU calibration based on sun sensors, which can only go so far in terms of accuracy.I think this is the worst idea in the whole space history: turn off a computer till 1 hour before final descent, when you need 20 minutes just to receive telemetries and send back possible correction telecommands!!!
No, I mean a nominal mission BUT with parachute Cd <0.4 due to mis-opening.Do you think you could also calculate the difference in timing w.r.t. schedule due to mis-opening parachute?Do you mean a free fall with different initial conditions? Because a ballistic reentry would require much more to code.
Post by: Xentry on 10/25/2016 09:32 am
Actually the whole process is entirely automated; there is absolutely no chance of sending any "correction telecommands" once separation from TGO occurred, and telemetry data was only being recorded for posterity by TGO and MRO, not being sent back to Earth in real-time à la Phoenix or Curiosity.[/font]I think this is the worst idea in the whole space history: turn off a computer till 1 hour before final descent, when you need 20 minutes just to receive telemetries and send back possible correction telecommands!!!
Now here's where it gets worst of all: if I'm not mistaken, there is no star tracker on EDM. And... the probe was shut down 15min after separation from TGO, leading to a complete loss of attitude knowledge during 3 days! Upon restarting the computer 75min from the Entry Point, in fact, there is an IMU calibration based on sun sensors, which can only go so far in terms of accuracy.
Post by: mcgyver on 10/27/2016 08:07 am
Today I read in the news that the culprit could be a timeout in the radar, but can't find any reliable source.
I also found another datum:
Quote
Ferri says the TGO requires about 3 hours to process the 20 megabytes of data it received from Schiaparelli before it can be transmitted,http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/tense-wait-news-europe-s-mars-lander
It's much more realistic than 600MB in 6 minutes, but actually I don't know the bandwidth of the TGO/EDM link.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/27/2016 08:28 am
Post by: mcgyver on 10/27/2016 10:23 am
Just a quick reminder, according to Anatoly Zak's RussianSpaceWeb: Today we're expecting the release of the HiRISE photos of Schiaparelli :)I guess we should wait at least until 15:00GMT (09:00 Eastern time) or even 18:00 GMT (09:00 Western time) before seing anything. :-\
This waiting is consuming me, together with lack of public data.
In the meantime, I did some researches, figuring out that (as probably you already know):
*Opportunity landing site was selected for Exomars to have at least some know-how available rather than starting from scratch.
*Opportunity attmpted taking pictures too late w.r.t EDL schedule, so no luck.
*Exomars 2020 EDM will be bigger than 2016 EDM, so current telemetries will not apply.
*Exomars 2020 EDM will not be built by same company.
So this is a "standalone" test, not useful at all for Exomars 2020.
I wrote to GMRT owners asking for screenshot of doppler track... Just in case they can publish it...
Post by: mcgyver on 10/27/2016 11:07 am
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Bayle_ExoMars_EDM_Overview-Paper.pdf (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Bayle_ExoMars_EDM_Overview-Paper.pdf)
Quote
2.5 Communications The EDM Communications system is conceived to ensure the following functions:
Provide telemetry during the autonomous 3-day coast phase to monitor the health status of the EDM systems, through a limited number of telecommunication windows (in particular right after TGO separation, mid-course during the Coast phase and shortly before the initiation of the EDL phase).
Provide telemetry during the EDL phase, with the objective to transmit in real-time essential telemetry that would allow a post-flight analysis in case of failure during the EDL. This essential telemetry includes health status of the subsystems, state vector calculated by the GNC algorithms and also critical parameters from the EDL susbsystems.
Provide a robust link during the surface phase in order to transmit all the data measured during the EDL phase (100 Mbit) and all the data gathered by the surface scientific instruments (50 Mbit). This transmission shall be completed within 4 sols after the EDM landing on Mars surface.
Details on events triggering:
Quote
The GNC function to initiate the parachute deployment is ensured by an algorithm based on the detection of an acceleration threshold. This algorithm is very simple and very robust, and ensures that the parachute will be deployed in the right envelope of Mach-Dynamic Pressure conditions.
In fig.15 I see a sad diagram of the thrusters: 9 different trhusters all relying on same single helium tank!
Why are they 9 if they are not independant?!? Where is redundancy?!?
I had imagined 3 different circuits, one for each thruster in each cluster!
Additionally, why TREE clusters (rather than 4) for TWO degrees of freedom?!? It makes the SW a lot more complex! ???
More on events triggering:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/7B.1_Lorenzoni_ExoMars%202016%20Entry%
20Descent%20and%20Landing%20Demonstrator%20Module%20EDL%20overview.pdf
Parachute:
g-activated
Front shield:
timer-activated (40s)
Back shield:
speed/alt-activated ?
Thrusters operations:
Warm up
Back Avoidance Maneuvre
Final braking (=ignition)
Switch off
No clues on triggering.
More on timeline:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/p507.pdf (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/p507.pdf)
Atmosphere entry (EIP) - 178~190s (deceleration)
[size=78%]High temperature phase ends (acceleration?)
Parachute (PAS) (deceleration)
40S parachute descent
Front Shield Jettison: PAS + 40 (deceleration)
Time for FS to get away: 10s
Radar turn on: FSJ + 10S (PAS+50s)
Radar ok within 17-40S from turn on
Lander separation: altitude-triggered? - acceleration
Free fall: 1s
RCS on - deceleration
GNC on ( ??? )
So the doppler track should show:
1 - decel (178~190s)
2 - accel?
3 - decel (40s)
4 - decel
5 - accel (1s)
6 - decel (30s)
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/27/2016 04:10 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Detailed_images_of_Schiaparelli_and_its_descent_hardware_on_Mars
Post by: savuporo on 10/27/2016 04:22 pm
Fullscale image direct link: http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/10/zooming_in_on_schiaparelli_components_on_mars/16204950-1-eng-GB/Zooming_in_on_Schiaparelli_components_on_Mars.jpg
Quote
At mid-upper left are the markings left by the Schiaparelli module. The dark circular feature is about 2.4 meters in diameter, about the size of the shallow crater expected from this mass (approximately 300 kilograms) impacting at about 100 meters per second into dry soil. The crater should be only approximately 0.5 meters deep. From this image we cannot clearly see the topography indicating the presence of a crater, which may be confirmed in later HiRISE images. Surrounding the dark spot are dark radial patterns expected from an impact event. The dark curving line to the northeast of the crater is unusual for a typical impact event, and we do not attempt to explain it here. Surrounding the dark spot are several relatively bright pixels or clusters of pixels. This could be image noise, or they could be real features, perhaps fragments of the lander. A later image will confirm if these spots are image noise or actual surface features.
From : http://www.uahirise.org/releases/esa-edm/
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/27/2016 04:27 pm
How is Elon Musk supposed to land PEOPLE just within 8 years, without even NASA knowhow available?!?
SpaceX probably has more experience landing heavy loads through atmosphere with rocket engines than NASA or anyone else. And with position errors under 10m, not 800m.
Post by: mcgyver on 10/27/2016 04:48 pm
About the dark curving line...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-xmaPSZ6GM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-xmaPSZ6GM)
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict0002759146411.jpg)
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2016 05:05 pm
How is Elon Musk supposed to land PEOPLE just within 8 years, without even NASA knowhow available?!?
SpaceX probably has more experience landing heavy loads through atmosphere with rocket engines than NASA or anyone else. And with position errors under 10m, not 800m.
That is with GPS. Not the same on Mars
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2016 05:08 pm
In fig.15 I see a sad diagram of the thrusters: 9 different trhusters all relying on same single helium tank!
Why are they 9 if they are not independant?!? Where is redundancy?!?
I had imagined 3 different circuits, one for each thruster in each cluster!
Because redundancy is not needed or could be used in this application and is unnecessarily complex. Pressurant systems are reliable. And most spacecraft have only one propellant leg and on pressurant leg.
These are not manned systems.
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/27/2016 05:23 pm
Post by: mcgyver on 10/27/2016 05:37 pm
A huge image collecting Schiaparelli, Curiosity and Opportunity landing sites from MRO, for comparison:
http://win98.altervista.org/exomars/exomars1-PIA21130-FigB-CTX-after-mixed.jpg
Post by: mcgyver on 10/27/2016 05:39 pm
Aren't these supposed to be all tests to build know how for future manned landings?
Because redundancy is not needed or could be used in this application and is unnecessarily complex. Pressurant systems are reliable. And most spacecraft have only one propellant leg and on pressurant leg.
These are not manned systems.
Post by: baldusi on 10/27/2016 06:07 pm
Before any manned missions are sent, one or more Red Dragons will have landed, each with a navigation beacon. Once those are surveyed after landing (by HiRISE, etc) they can act as reference locations for precise subsequent landings.Do you have inside information, or is that just a supposition? Do you know how they are going to power it? Are you aware that they supposedly have three launch windows to deploy the beacons?
In any case, this is not the thread to discuss this things.
Post by: savuporo on 10/27/2016 06:09 pm
Post by: denis on 10/27/2016 06:16 pm
No.Aren't these supposed to be all tests to build know how for future manned landings?
Because redundancy is not needed or could be used in this application and is unnecessarily complex. Pressurant systems are reliable. And most spacecraft have only one propellant leg and on pressurant leg.
These are not manned systems.
These are supposed to build up know-how for future automated landing, in particular on the EDL system.
Validation of propulsion systems does not require to send anything to Mars.
Post by: Anabasis on 10/27/2016 06:36 pm
In fig.15 I see a sad diagram of the thrusters: 9 different trhusters all relying on same single helium tank!
Why are they 9 if they are not independant?!?
I am guessing, but I would say because those 400N are the biggest monoprollent thrusters ASL has on offer.
They are also the type that is used on the Ariane 5 RCS, so pretty well tested and flight proven.
http://www.space-propulsion.com/spacecraft-propulsion/hydrazine-thrusters/400n-thruster.html (http://www.space-propulsion.com/spacecraft-propulsion/hydrazine-thrusters/400n-thruster.html)
Post by: eeergo on 10/27/2016 06:39 pm
*Exomars 2020 EDM will be bigger than 2016 EDM, so current telemetries will not apply.
*Exomars 2020 EDM will not be built by same company.
So this is a "standalone" test, not useful at all for Exomars 2020.
I wouldn't say this so categorically considering it's only the first fully ESA-controlled landing attempt at Mars, and the second one ever in a planetary-like surface (after Huygens).
Data from Schiaparelli will certainly be crucial in designing the 2020 EDL. This failure might or might not have a large impact on it depending where it came from (hard- vs soft-ware) but certainly it isn't standalone.
Post by: Anabasis on 10/27/2016 07:10 pm
*Exomars 2020 EDM will be bigger than 2016 EDM, so current telemetries will not apply.
*Exomars 2020 EDM will not be built by same company.
So this is a "standalone" test, not useful at all for Exomars 2020.
1) If that were true a lot of tests subscale demonstrators would be pointless. That's obviously not the case. It's possible to scale up the data and a lot of it is independent of size.
2) The Exomars 2020 lander will re-use parts of EDM, namely the OBC, radar altimeter and parachute. Who builds the metal structure is of minor concern compared to that.
Post by: mcgyver on 10/27/2016 07:15 pm
Schiaparelli parachute does not look good to me...
Note: terminal velocity on parachute on Mars is around 200 km/h due to thin air.(http://win98.altervista.org/exomars/landing-sites-parachutes.png)
Post by: denis on 10/27/2016 07:26 pm
2) The Exomars 2020 lander will re-use parts of EDM, namely the OBC, radar altimeter and parachute. Who builds the metal structure is of minor concern compared to that.
It would be interesting to know which company designed the GNC of Schiaparelli (and implemented the software, if not the same) and if it is the same organisation for 2020.
Post by: savuporo on 10/27/2016 07:38 pm
Read back here a few pages. GNC design wasn't a single company, software was but testing it was a large collaboration. Coding was done by GMV2) The Exomars 2020 lander will re-use parts of EDM, namely the OBC, radar altimeter and parachute. Who builds the metal structure is of minor concern compared to that.
It would be interesting to know which company designed the GNC of Schiaparelli (and implemented the software, if not the same) and if it is the same organisation for 2020.
Post by: denis on 10/27/2016 07:58 pm
It would be interesting to know which company designed the GNC of Schiaparelli (and implemented the software, if not the same) and if it is the same organisation for 2020.Read back here a few pages. GNC design wasn't a single company, software was but testing it was a large collaboration. Coding was done by GMV
Yes I saw your post a few pages back, but it was not clear to me who was really in charge of the GNC design.
For the ExoMars 2020, what is the organisation ? I understood that the Russians are providing part of the hardware (including landing platform) but the avionics is provided by ESA. Is that correct ?
Post by: savuporo on 10/27/2016 08:13 pm
Yes I saw your post a few pages back, but it was not clear to me who was really in charge of the GNC design.Thales is ultimately the prime contractor responsible, under ESA supervision, but GNC overall design is a collaboration between academia, ESTEC and the industry teams involved.
And yes, Russia is providing lander propulsion and part of the lander hardware for 2020, but not directly participating in overall GNC design.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/27/2016 09:50 pm
Schiaparelli parachute does not look good to me...
Note: terminal velocity on parachute on Mars is around 200 km/h due to thin air.(http://win98.altervista.org/exomars/landing-sites-parachutes.png)
This really makes me wish that Curiosity had gone (albeit a bit out of its way) to take some pictures of the skycrane impact site, or its parachute, for some "ground truth" to compare to what we're seeing in these orbital pictures.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/27/2016 10:08 pm
Via Zak : On October 27, Rolf Densing, the Head of the European mission control center in Darmstadt, Germany, was quoted in German media as saying that some unexpected movement of the parachute could confuse the flight control system into thinking that the landing had already taken place. This phenomenon apparently manifested itself during only a few out of the thousands of tests, but it was considered so unlikely that no action was deemed necessary to negate it.
Post by: Star One on 10/27/2016 10:14 pm
It "is unusual for a typical impact event and not yet explained," NASA says.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/10/new-hi-rez-photo-of-europes-lost-mars-lander-uncovers-a-new-mystery/
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/28/2016 01:33 am
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/28/2016 08:26 am
According to the Twitter account, "With a bit of luck we'll catch PHOBOS in orbit 2."
https://twitter.com/ExoMars_NOMAD
Post by: mcgyver on 10/28/2016 08:29 am
Densing declaration make me think it was not:
"some unexpected movement of the parachute could confuse the flight control system".
"unexpected"?? ???
A parachute fail would lead to higher-speed-than-expected situation when "initial descent" phase times out.
Was the needed "else" present?
while (current_speed > SAFE_SPEED) {
// wait for parachute to slow down EDM.
if (parachute_phase_duration > parachute_phase_MAX_DURATION) {// timeout
if (current_speed < MAX_ALLOWED_SPEED_AFTER_PARACHUTE) {
detachParachute();
} else {
printf("What the f***? I'll gonna dieeeee....");
}
}
}
If it was not present, SW behaviour is unpredictable/random.
Post by: mcgyver on 10/28/2016 02:22 pm
http://www.esa.int/ita/ESA_in_your_country/Italy/Immagini_dettagliate_di_Schiaparelli_e_delle_parti_impiegate_per_la_discesa_su_Marte
Post by: plutogno on 10/28/2016 04:41 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/28/2016 05:22 pm
I think it's unfair to treat the engineers, programmers and coders who developed Schiaparelli as incompetent as is more or less openly suggested by some of the recent posts to this topic. please stop
This.
More to the point - although ESA probably doesn't have the material base NASA has (in terms of testing facilities), software issues scare quite a lot of NASA engineers too.
There's a story about NASA mission (probably New Horizons) during which engineers found a critical bug, and a quick fix was necessary, or the mission was about to fail soon.
The loss of Schiaparelli is unfortunate, but many lessons were learned.
Post by: sghill on 10/28/2016 05:24 pm
Post by: redliox on 10/28/2016 06:43 pm
Too soon? :>
Don't tell ESA ;D
Post by: redliox on 10/28/2016 06:46 pm
According to the Twitter account, "With a bit of luck we'll catch PHOBOS in orbit 2."
That'll be good to see if it does. :) I know Mars Express had the luck of numerous Phobos flybys in its life. Is there any way to see what encounters TGO could have before settling into low Mars orbit?
Post by: Blackstar on 10/28/2016 06:51 pm
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.
Post by: redliox 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?
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/28/2016 07:06 pm
If the 2020 mission fails, this will be of a huge scientific loss.
Post by: eeergo 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.
Post by: savuporo 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 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40046.0) some of who does what equation (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31587.msg1036221). Lavochkin appears to be building the lander platform and propulsion without much of control systems.
To provide an official quote (http://robotics.estec.esa.int/ASTRA/Astra2015/Papers/Session%201A/96038_Poulakis.pdf)
Quote
1.3.Industrial ConsortiumThese are the primes, obviously there are a ton of other parties involved, largely overlapping with Schiaparelli participants.
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)
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.
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/28/2016 07:43 pm
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.
Post by: savuporo 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
Post by: savuporo on 10/30/2016 04:07 pm
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
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/31/2016 01:43 pm
Post by: notsorandom 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.
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/02/2016 02:36 pm
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/
Post by: Phil Stooke on 11/02/2016 04:50 pm
Post by: tolis 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.
Post by: ccdengr 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.
Post by: savuporo 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.
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/03/2016 02:35 pm
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.
Post by: notsorandom 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?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.
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.
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/03/2016 06:22 pm
http://www.uahirise.org/releases/esa-edm/second-image.php
Post by: woods170 on 11/03/2016 06:47 pm
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?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.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 11/03/2016 06:56 pm
Post by: vjkane on 11/03/2016 07:17 pm
Post by: baldusi on 11/03/2016 08:11 pm
But given all those ifs, I don't think it could have been a contributing factor.
I still think that it hurts more than it helps the USA. But somehow the will of the people seems happy with it and likes to say that it is relaxed when in fact it was strenghtened.
Post by: mcgyver on 11/04/2016 07:38 am
(http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/11/schiaparelli_parachute_moves_in_the_wind/16475142-1-eng-GB/Schiaparelli_parachute_moves_in_the_wind_node_full_image_2.jpg)
It moved in the wind, but it was not able to get away from backshell the (supposed) length of its wires.
I think also another curved streak is visible in the upper part of the cropped image, due to "flying tanks":
(http://static.uahirise.org/images/2016/details/cut/ESP_048120_1780-1.jpg)
I don't understand why full image is not released. I think we could also see, around the main impact site, also the "impact sites" of the flying tanks...
Images are not yet available in the Hirise image browser (http://www.uahirise.org/hiwish/browse), anyway they are centered around -2.0° S, 353.5° E , or -2.0° S, -6.5° W
First image, b/w:
47975_1779
Second image, color:
48120_1780
They should also become available at these addresses:
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_047975_1779 (http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_047975_1779)
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_048120_1780 (http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_048120_1780)
Working link (not related to Schiaparelli, just for example): http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_037190_1765 (http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_037190_1765)
Post by: woods170 on 11/04/2016 12:53 pm
It looks now clear to me that there was a failure in the parachute:That is one gutsy call based on images alone.
Don't do that please. Thank you.
Post by: mcgyver on 11/04/2016 01:38 pm
That's all we have (and we'll have).It looks now clear to me that there was a failure in the parachute:That is one gutsy call based on images alone.
[/font][/size]Don't do that please. Thank you.Don't tell me what to do unless you are you authorized to do it.
Plaese.
Thank you.
Post by: eeergo on 11/04/2016 02:53 pm
That's all we have (and we'll have).It looks now clear to me that there was a failure in the parachute:That is one gutsy call based on images alone.
No it isn't, Accomazzo said very clearly in the post-failure one-on-one interview that they had nominal descent up until backshell separation. If there was a major parachute failure you could deduce from those images, telemetry wouldn't have been nominal up until then.
Further, your only argument has been "it was not able to get away from backshell the (supposed) length of its wires"... so? How does that indicate failure? Why would the feeble Martian wind be strong enough to move it so much (especially when it has pushed it from ~above in the picture? Couldn't it have splayed more even if ripped to pieces, if the wind was strong enough? This argument by itself doesn't show anything.
Post by: mcgyver on 11/04/2016 10:58 pm
Accomazzo said a lot of things... also that parachute detached prematurely, BUT the actual data was probably "speed was too hig (https://twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/789020056340590592)h at the time of parachute detachment"; this can depend on two causes (and can then be interpreted in two ways): premature detachment, or parachute not completely unfolded.That's all we have (and we'll have).It looks now clear to me that there was a failure in the parachute:That is one gutsy call based on images alone.
No it isn't, Accomazzo said very clearly in the post-failure one-on-one interview that they had nominal descent up until backshell separation.
In both cases, all subsequents timeouts become wrong due to wrong timing (=shifting) of all subsequent phases: lander reached low altitude too early, entered "landed phase" too early,...
Also the "wobbling" of the lander recorded during parachute descent makes think to a twisted/unfolded parachute.
They also talked about a "low probability (1:1000) event not taken into account by SW".
ROSCOSMOS also talk about "unexpected movements during parachute pahse confusing SW":
Anatoly Zak
Schiaparelli crash investigation: some unexpected parachute movement could confuse flight control system: https://t.co/rSS1Lp0wXq (https://t.co/rSS1Lp0wXq)
Then we have a parachute too close to backshell.
Five clues:
*too high speed
*lander wobbling
*unexpexted movement during parachute phase
*parachute very close to backshell
*low probability event in parachute phase
Post by: Space Opera on 11/04/2016 11:05 pm
Then we have a parachute too close to backshell.No, you see the parachute which landed next to the backshell. Period.
The fact that you infer from this that the ropes are too tightly and shortly attached to the backshell is pure speculation and based on nothing.
Post by: mcgyver on 11/04/2016 11:23 pm
The fact that you infer from this that the ropes are too tightly and shortly attached to the backshell is pure speculation and based on nothing.
You're wrong: it's based on comparison to 4 previous missions.
Opportunity: parachute 10 meters away from backshell
Spirit: 20m
Phoenix: 20m
Curiosity: 30m
Schiaparelli: 30 cm?!?!?
http://win98.altervista.org/exomars/landing-sites-parachutes.png (http://win98.altervista.org/exomars/landing-sites-parachutes.png)
We could also check relative position of chutes w.r.t backshells and wind direction.
(http://win98.altervista.org/exomars/landing-sites-parachutes.png)
Post by: Space Opera on 11/05/2016 12:02 am
But okay, you want to see a clue where the most likely explanation is just randomness. If you had presented this failure as a possible and unlikely explanation to this observation it would be okay (and correct), but this conclusive statement:
Then we have a parachute too close to backshell.is not very rational.
Post by: savuporo on 11/05/2016 01:24 am
https://attivissimo.blogspot.it/2016/10/cose-successo-realmente-schiaparelli.html ( in Italian )
Slightly edited and orribly googley translation parts below
Quote
In the media ther are several hypotheses circulating , which are often so banal and ridiculous as to be offensive to those who worked for ExoMars and particularly Schiaparelli. In fact there was a mistake, but it was much more subtle and difficult to anticipate what you say around. To clarify how they are really the things I summarize here the technical information that I obtained confidentially and are based on telemetry data received and analyzed so far...
The thermal shield located before it worked perfectly, and when Schiaparelli noted deceleration expected by its designers had "understood" to have reached the denser layers of the Martian atmosphere and then gave the order to open the parachute. Fifty seconds after the opening of the parachute, Schiaparelli dropped the heat shield, exposing the Doppler onboard radar, which has started to measure the distance from the surface. Although all of these steps have been carried out properly. But from here the problems started and mysteries.
Schiaparelli knew that share was compared to the Martian surface thanks to radar, which indicated the distance, but he needed to know his own inclination, to see if the radar was pointing vertically downwards (and was pointing the actual distance from the ground), or if he was pointing sideways (and so was giving a distance value that was corrected for the angle of inclination).
The inclination was being provided by the IMU sensors , but they were providing incorrect data, because they had gone into saturation due to unforeseen fluctuations suffered by Schiaparelli while hanging from the parachute. These mistaken measures have been interpreted by the computer as an overturned vehicle attitude in practice, Schiaparelli believed to be upside down, with radar that looked up and saw the Martian surface above the vehicle. The onboard computer has concluded, with obtusely robotic logic, that if the share had a negative value meant that Schiaparelli had already landed. But it was still a few kilometers in altitude, in free fall towards the Martian surface.
Again, speculation, but somewhat slightly more informed apparently. Sounds like a confluence of multiple factors that eventually triggered an invalid action by software.
EDIT: also note, "unforeseen oscillations" are a popular and time honored way to confuse GNC and control systems in general. To the point that some even look at their own outputs with FFT to detect weirdness early.
Came to that article from here :
http://www.media.inaf.it/2016/11/02/bili-lidar-marte-nasa/
Quote
There are great expectations for the official autopsy report lander Schiaparelli, so that you know what exactly has caused the crash: should arrive in a few days, but already is facing a number of scenarios ..
Post by: Space Opera on 11/05/2016 01:33 am
I've been said that Schiaparelli might have been too light to behave as expected under the chute.
Post by: mcgyver on 11/05/2016 08:46 am
Just to cut down speculation and offer some new info :Italian is my native language. That article is very poorly written , which lets me think the author does not know anything about space mission, he just eavesdropped a technical conversation, then ran to his laptop with this "leaked breaking news".
https://attivissimo.blogspot.it/2016/10/cose-successo-realmente-schiaparelli.html (https://attivissimo.blogspot.it/2016/10/cose-successo-realmente-schiaparelli.html) ( in Italian )
Here is my translation of the "core" of the article:
[...]All these phases, too, went as planned. Then problems and mysteries started.
Schiaparelli knew [1] its altitude thanks to the radar, which was indicating the distance, but it [also] needed to know its inclination, to figure out if radar was pointing stright below (thus providing real altitude) or slightly on one side (thus providing a distance value to be corrected for inclination).
Inclination was provided by IMU, but it was providing wrong values, because IMU sensors were saturating due to unexpected oscillations encountered by Schiaparelli while hanging from the parachute. These wrong values has been interpreted by GNC as reverse flight: Schiaparelli thought it was falling upside-down, with radar looking above, and Mars visible above [2].
GNC concluded that if altitude was negative [3], then lander had already landed [4]
[1]This is what is written there; but the correct sentence should be "Schiaparelli COULD know"
[2]Badly written in Italian; what he meant is (of course) that Schiaparelli was thinking that radar was looking to the sky and Mars was approaching from lander's back. Anyway this is not true. Schiaparelli was JUST receiving wrong inputs from sensors, NOT assuming it was upside-down. And it was not programmed to process such wrong inputs.
[3]Where did he write it? This article is a real mess...
[4]This is the software bug "contained" in such a sentence:
if (CURRENT_ALTITUDE < 2) then
ShutdownThrusters()
end if
No robustness at all! Negative altitude....A variable like CURRENT_ALTITUDE should be an UNSIGNED INT, or, even better, be checked for valid/invalid values!
Oh my God, who did write this SW?!?
Anyway, who cares? Knowing what to do if altitude was false would have not saved the lander, it was doomed as soon as parachute (mis)opened.
Post by: plutogno on 11/05/2016 09:48 am
Post by: tolis on 11/06/2016 05:23 pm
again, it's unfair to treat the engineers, programmers and coders who developed Schiaparelli as incompetent. there is not enough evidence available to the public at the moment to pinpoint the cause of the failure. please stop the speculations. these posts only reduce the SNR of the forum.
Indeed, the only grounds to fault ESA so far is in its PR handing of the incident, at least initially. Reporters
definitely didn't appreciate Jan-Dietrich Woerner speaking about the landing as if it didn't
really matter. Perhaps that was not the meaning intended,
but first impressions do matter.
I also find it ironic that the various elements of the EDL system, which were not decided to soft-land,
ended up in a better way than Schiaparelli, which was.
Finally, a question for the experts: can you tell from the pictures whether there was an explosion
upon impact, or was the lander simply smashed into pieces?
Post by: gosnold on 11/06/2016 06:54 pm
Indeed, the only grounds to fault ESA so far is in its PR handing of the incident, at least initially. Reporters
definitely didn't appreciate Jan-Dietrich Woerner speaking about the landing as if it didn't
really matter. Perhaps that was not the meaning intended,
but first impressions do matter.
I am surprised by the way Woerner acts as director general. This plus the "Moon village" idea do not seem to be based in reality.
Post by: as58 on 11/06/2016 06:57 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1607066;topic=31368.860;last_msg=1607066
Indeed, the only grounds to fault ESA so far is in its PR handing of the incident, at least initially. Reporters
definitely didn't appreciate Jan-Dietrich Woerner speaking about the landing as if it didn't
really matter. Perhaps that was not the meaning intended,
but first impressions do matter.
I am surprised by the way Woerner acts as director general. This plus the "Moon village" idea do not seem to be based in reality.
The previous DG's ambitions about the Mars program didn't always seem to be based in (funding) reality either.
Post by: savuporo on 11/06/2016 07:11 pm
I am surprised by the way Woerner acts as director general. This plus the "Moon village" idea do not seem to be based in reality.Off topic, but #JourneyToMars is about as real as Moon Village People ( and Robots).
Post by: b0objunior on 11/06/2016 07:49 pm
Push the other underwater to save yourself, that always good. NOPE.I am surprised by the way Woerner acts as director general. This plus the "Moon village" idea do not seem to be based in reality.Off topic, but #JourneyToMars is about as real as Moon Village People ( and Robots).
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 11/06/2016 09:30 pm
again, it's unfair to treat the engineers, programmers and coders who developed Schiaparelli as incompetent. there is not enough evidence available to the public at the moment to pinpoint the cause of the failure. please stop the speculations. these posts only reduce the SNR of the forum.
Indeed, the only grounds to fault ESA so far is in its PR handing of the incident, at least initially. Reporters definitely didn't appreciate Jan-Dietrich Woerner speaking about the landing as if it didn't really matter. Perhaps that was not the meaning intended, but first impressions do matter.
Yep, bad PR antagonised the press and other observers, who responded by no longer giving anyone at ESA the benefit of the doubt.
The way out of this is to improve the PR, not to criticise the audience - you never win that way.
Post by: Blackstar on 11/07/2016 11:42 am
Indeed, the only grounds to fault ESA so far is in its PR handing of the incident, at least initially. Reporters
definitely didn't appreciate Jan-Dietrich Woerner speaking about the landing as if it didn't
really matter. Perhaps that was not the meaning intended,
but first impressions do matter.
I think that managing expectations for this entire mission was always a difficult prospect. TGO is the main mission. It is the most important mission. But people were always going to gravitate toward the lander because landers seem sexy. ESA should have learned that lesson from the Beagle 2 experience.
Perhaps one way to have managed expectations would have been in naming the orbiter and not the lander. Give the orbiter the interesting name and the lander an acronym like "Landing Technology Demonstration" that emphasized its proper role.
And I do think that Woerner's initial comment was a mistake. Calling it 96% successful, or whatever he did, was not going to resonate with people (who are going to draw analogies to an airplane that crashes upon landing), and it just looks weasely.
I think the only good way to recover now is to have an open investigation process. Or maybe they've done too much damage with their credibility.
Post by: Blackstar on 11/07/2016 04:19 pm
Key meeting to weigh Mars crash report
Post by: mcgyver on 11/08/2016 03:40 pm
http://www.vorticity-systems.com/disciplines/parachutes-and-aerodynamic-decelerators/ (http://www.vorticity-systems.com/disciplines/parachutes-and-aerodynamic-decelerators/)
I heard that this test was not done due to lack of money :-(
http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Presentations/
Room%202.2/Tuesday/Entry,%20Descent%20and%20Landing%20I/2.2_1010_Underwood_Lingard.pdf
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/15/2016 07:18 pm
http://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2016/11/15/the-game-of-risk/
Post by: Star One on 11/18/2016 08:02 pm
http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/ESA_s_new_Mars_orbiter_prepares_for_first_science
Post by: stichtom on 11/19/2016 07:18 am
Apparently the Italian Space Agency is angry at ESA for giving a crucial test to a Romanian company instead of the "Swedish space corporation". The test was launching a model of Schiaparelli from a stratospheric balloon to test all of its components but the romanian company wasn't able to do it in time so ESA decided that computer simulations were enough.
Apparently all of this in order to save 1M €.
Post by: redliox on 11/19/2016 07:29 am
http://www.repubblica.it/scienze/2016/11/19/news/sonda_su_marte_test_affidati_a_una_ditta_romena_cosi_si_e_schiantato_schiaparelli-152309028/?ref=fbpr
Apparently the Italian Space Agency is angry at ESA for giving a crucial test to a Romanian company instead of the "Swedish space corporation". The test was launching a model of Schiaparelli from a stratospheric balloon to test all of its components but the romanian company wasn't able to do it in time so ESA decided that computer simulations were enough.
Apparently all of this in order to save 1M €.
*facepalms*
Nothing against Romania, but we may have discovered the potential flaw. I recall Blackstar warning how ESA had issues with not testing thoroughly enough...
Post by: baldusi on 11/19/2016 01:53 pm
In hindsight, it might have catch the failure mode. Or it might not. But if they are so furious then they should have put the extra money. They must have done a lot of penny pinching in the end due to budget delays and increased costs of ExoMars 2020.
Post by: plutogno on 11/19/2016 01:58 pm
http://www.airpressonline.it/14239/gli-errori-dellesa-su-schiaparelli-parla-flamini-asi/
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/19/2016 03:59 pm
Post by: bolun on 11/19/2016 04:19 pm
http://www.repubblica.it/scienze/2016/11/19/news/sonda_su_marte_test_affidati_a_una_ditta_romena_cosi_si_e_schiantato_schiaparelli-152309028/?ref=fbpr
Apparently the Italian Space Agency is angry at ESA for giving a crucial test to a Romanian company instead of the "Swedish space corporation". The test was launching a model of Schiaparelli from a stratospheric balloon to test all of its components but the romanian company wasn't able to do it in time so ESA decided that computer simulations were enough.
Apparently all of this in order to save 1M €.
*facepalms*
Nothing against Romania, but we may have discovered the potential flaw. I recall Blackstar warning how ESA had issues with not testing thoroughly enough...
Some info.
http://www.arcaspace.com/en/exomars.htm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31368.msg1056486#msg1056486
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31368.msg1107107#msg1107107
Post by: Blackstar on 11/19/2016 04:43 pm
Nothing against Romania, but we may have discovered the potential flaw. I recall Blackstar warning how ESA had issues with not testing thoroughly enough...
I don't remember claiming that. I do not have any information indicating that. But I do think that it will be a key issue they look at. Any failure investigation is going to ask how come the failure was not discovered, and that usually has to do with either bad testing or not enough testing.
Post by: mcgyver on 11/23/2016 07:48 am
but..
Which failure?
Of what?
Why?
How to prevent it in next missions?
This is not an answer, it looks like just an attempt to give EDM mission failure responsibility to somebody else...
Post by: plutogno on 11/23/2016 08:28 am
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/23/2016 11:52 am
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_makes_progress
Post by: woods170 on 11/23/2016 06:24 pm
http://spacenews.com/esa-mars-lander-crash-caused-by-1-second-inertial-measurement-error/
Post by: ugordan on 11/23/2016 06:39 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/23/2016 07:00 pm
Post by: savuporo on 11/24/2016 01:23 am
More official news from Schiaparelli!
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_makes_progress
Pretty classic control system bug from the description provided. Inability to deal with inertial sensor saturation.
Post by: redliox on 11/24/2016 01:34 am
More official news from Schiaparelli!
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_makes_progress
Pretty classic control system bug from the description provided. Inability to deal with inertial sensor saturation.
That's a pity, but at least it means the parachutes and early entry elements weren't to blame. Problem narrowed down.
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/24/2016 08:37 am
https://twitter.com/ExoMars_NOMAD
First data from the main science instrument NOMAD has been received on Earth, team is in the process of analyzing it, prepares for second science orbit tomorrow.
Post by: mcgyver on 11/24/2016 12:24 pm
That's a pity, but at least it means the parachutes and early entry elements weren't to blame. Problem narrowed down."Narrowed down"?!? ??? "Parachute not to blame"?!? ???
Quote
The European Space Agency on Nov. 23 said its Schiaparelli lander’s crash landing on Mars on Oct. 19 followed an unexplained saturation of its inertial measurement unit,http://spacenews.com/esa-mars-lander-crash-caused-by-1-second-inertial-measurement-error/#sthash.Aq4ouSIL.dpuf (http://spacenews.com/esa-mars-lander-crash-caused-by-1-second-inertial-measurement-error/#sthash.Aq4ouSIL.dpuf)
Why did IMU saturate? (parachute failure?)
Why did IMU wrong data result in negative altitude reading? (integer variable overflow?)
Why wrong gyro readings impacted altitude estimation?
Why wasn't negative altitude reading detected as an error? (missing "if" statement?)
Why was a "freefall status" (i.e. ~ 0g) status detected as "landed status" (=0.3g) ? (landing "detected" only by altitude and timing?)
We are far far away from root cause of the accident.
And we won't know anything till "first months of 2017"... :(
EU ministers will decide Exomars 2020 funding within 1 week, and ESA will present a double failure: Engineering failure (=crash) and Quality Assurance failure (no results from investigations yet). :(
Post by: jgoldader on 11/24/2016 01:04 pm
Post by: Blackstar on 11/24/2016 02:34 pm
We are far far away from root cause of the accident.
Yeah, but it has indeed been narrowed down.
Post by: tjchambers on 11/24/2016 03:22 pm
Having said that the other effect is that the learning from experiencing the events from 3.7km to surface that could have also provided insights was also "lost" as a result of this "event" at altitude. While investigation of the failure is critical, the misbehavior contributed to an abnormal termination of learning.
Post by: Blackstar on 11/24/2016 05:14 pm
In my experience as a software developer, there is rarely a SINGLE cause.
Accident reports use the Swiss cheese analogy--failures only occur if all the holes in the cheese line up so that something can go through them. Thus, there might be a single cause, but the accident investigation asks why that mistake was not prevented? Why did the checks and balances fail?
I've got a diagram around somewhere that illustrates that. It includes the design phases and the operational phases of a technology. A properly designed system plugs all those holes at some point, by plugging some of them each in concept, development, and operations.
It's one of my pet peeves when people talk about NASA's metric conversion error when they lost a Mars mission in the late 1990s. The mistake was not really the conversion error, because that kind of stuff happens all the time. The real question was why nobody caught that error. Fix the system, and you prevent many errors.
Post by: baldusi on 11/24/2016 05:41 pm
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 11/24/2016 05:51 pm
And we won't know anything till "first months of 2017"... :(
It's unrealistic to expect a full analysis of a €100M project in less than 6 months.
Post by: catdlr on 11/25/2016 12:51 am
By Irene Klotz
ReutersNovember 23, 2016
https://www.yahoo.com/news/navigation-system-failure-cited-crash-european-mars-lander-191657647--finance.html
Quote
Europe's Schiaparelli Mars lander crashed last month after a sensor failure caused it to cast away its parachute and turn off braking thrusters more than two miles (3.7 km) above the surface of the planet, as if it had already landed, a report released on Wednesday said.
The error stemmed from a momentary glitch in a device that measured how fast the spacecraft was spinning, the report by the European Space Agency said.
"When merged into the navigation system, the erroneous information generated an estimated altitude that was negative - that is, below ground level. This in turn successively triggered a premature release of the parachute ... and a brief firing of the braking thrusters," ESA said of its Oct. 19 attempt to land the Schiaparelli spacecraft on Mars.
Post by: vjkane on 11/25/2016 03:49 am
In my experience as a software developer, there is rarely a SINGLE cause. There may be a root cause, but the robustness compromised by a 'root' cause is often the fault of missing checks and balances.The project is lucky to have found the proximal cause so easily (the Mars Polar Lander failure was never tied to a single possible failure, although at least one, I believe software, problem was deemed sufficient to have caused the failure if nothing else did.
Having said that the other effect is that the learning from experiencing the events from 3.7km to surface that could have also provided insights was also "lost" as a result of this "event" at altitude. While investigation of the failure is critical, the misbehavior contributed to an abnormal termination of learning.
The more interesting question will be why this failure mode was not designed for or caught in testing? It's possible that this one IMU was bad or that the failure mode was so unlikley no reasonable team would have designed or tested for it. Or, is there a core issue in the development process for this mission, and more importantly, is it also present in the 2020 lander design and testing?
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/25/2016 02:35 pm
Romanian company ARCA would initiate the necessary actions to have Enrico Flamini, the leader of ASI’s scientific team, “support the costs of the statements that have generated a press campaign against ARCA”.
Post by: tjchambers on 11/25/2016 03:23 pm
The more interesting question will be why this failure mode was not designed for or caught in testing? It's possible that this one IMU was bad or that the failure mode was so unlikley no reasonable team would have designed or tested for it. Or, is there a core issue in the development process for this mission, and more importantly, is it also present in the 2020 lander design and testing?
How true. Perhaps a "failure of imagination". However developers are by their nature extremely careful about abnormal input, especially in embedded autonomous systems. Not considering all possibilities is why I am such a believer in automated software mutation testing.
Post by: denis on 11/25/2016 09:36 pm
I'm wondering about how the IMU might have limited for a whole 1sec. This might have happened in the old Russian IMU that actually used physical gyros that had a limit on on angle. But with the laser and MEM IMUs this is strange. I would be extremely surprised if they had had a data type incompatibility (like signed and unsigned data).
Even optical and MEMS gyros have a limit on the max rate that can be measured. I don't know what they are flying on ExoMars.
Post by: wally on 11/26/2016 12:11 pm
http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-in-conflict-with-italian-space-agency-over-failed-mars-mission/
Romanian company ARCA would initiate the necessary actions to have Enrico Flamini, the leader of ASI’s scientific team, “support the costs of the statements that have generated a press campaign against ARCA”.
Well, ARCA doesn't have quite an impressive portfolio (they're full of PR stunts and nothing more anyway), but could the IMU failure be related to the parachute deployment in some relevant way? Or could the poor parachute testing that ARCA did could indirectly influence the Schiaparelli crash?
Post by: savuporo on 11/26/2016 06:35 pm
Or could the poor parachute testing that ARCA did could indirectly influence the Schiaparelli crash?Please see this post on the background on who actually did parachute testing (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31368.msg1601745#msg1601745)
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/26/2016 07:16 pm
Meanwhile nobody cares about the ExoMars-TGO updates. There are awesome news every day and scientists operating NOMAD and CaSSIS are very excited. They get their data, they get their images (which are scheduled to be released very soon), and today they'll try to take photos of Phobos.
Does anybody care about that or is everyone overfocused on Schiaparelli?
Post by: wally on 11/27/2016 08:08 am
Just to be sure, the background on who and when built and tested the parachutes. This is not saying parachutes failed, but just to get this on record:
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/space/press-release/exomars-story-continuesQuoteThales Alenia Space Italy is the industrial prime contractor for the ExoMars program, and is also responsible for design of the 2016 Entry, descent and landing Demonstrator Module (EDM)
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/49179-parachute-system-tests/QuoteThe parachute test activities are carried out by Thales Alenia Space, France, and AeroSekur, led by Thales Alenia Space - Italy, including key contributions from Vorticity Ltd. and Cambridge University (sub-scale high altitude drop tests) and CNES / Swedish Space Corporation (full-scale high altitude drop tests to be performed in 2012), under the close supervision of ESA.
http://www.vorticity-systems.com/case-studies/thalesesa-exomars/QuoteEnsuring a successful parachute system is a vital element of the design of the ExoMars 2016 mission.
Vorticity has responsibility for the parachute system performance, oversight of parachute system design and system level testing.
Vorticity is simulating parachute performance throughout the operational Mach number regime using fluid structure interaction (FSI) analysis.
Vorticity managed subsonic wind tunnel tests of the second stage parachute at the 9 m x 9 m CNRC wind tunnel and is working on supersonic testing of the first stage parachute in the NASA Glenn 10 ft x 10 ft tunnel.
We have already conducted successful subscale high altitude drop testing of the parachute and are developing the high altitude drop test vehicle, its controller and instrumentation that will be used to conduct an end-to end test of the full scale parachute system following release from a balloon from 30 km altitude.
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57384-schiaparellis-parachute-with-team/QuotePictured here are some of the people from ESA, industry (Thales Alenia Space Italy, Thales Alenia Space France, Vorticity, General Dynamics (USA)) and the NFAC test facility with the qualification model of Schiaparelli's parachute.
Further, some technical precentations by Vorticity on related testing at http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Index.html , Entry, Descent and Landing
http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Presentations/Room%202.2/Tuesday/Entry,%20Descent%20and%20Landing%20I/2.2_0930_Underwood_Lingard.pdf
http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Presentations/Room%202.2/Tuesday/Entry,%20Descent%20and%20Landing%20I/2.2_1010_Underwood_Lingard.pdf
http://esaconferencebureau.com/Custom/15A01/Presentations/Room%202.2/Tuesday/Entry,%20Descent%20and%20Landing%20I/2.2_1030_Underwood_Lingard.pdf
These buffoons (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/exomars.htm) say they did some testing of the parachutes, can you please elaborate on their role in this? I'm just curious about their involvement.
Post by: catfry on 11/27/2016 11:32 am
Meanwhile nobody cares about the ExoMars-TGO updates. There are awesome news every day and scientists operating NOMAD and CaSSIS are very excited. They get their data, they get their images (which are scheduled to be released very soon), and today they'll try to take photos of Phobos.
Does anybody care about that or is everyone overfocused on Schiaparelli?
I read all news about the mission. What new news can you report about TGO?
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/27/2016 01:00 pm
I read all news about the mission. What new news can you report about TGO?
I was talking about yesterday's news:
https://twitter.com/exomars_cassis
This evening I'll be waking up to image #Mars & #Phobos, during the #periapsis pass of #MCO science-orbit 2. Bring it on! #ExoMars
Post by: savuporo on 11/27/2016 03:51 pm
These buffoons (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/exomars.htm) say they did some testing of the parachutes..Please find another source citing this. For background, see here (http://www2.rosa.ro/index.php/en/news-menu/stiri/197-position-of-the-romanian-space-agency-on-romania-s-contribution-and-benefits-as-member-state-of-esa) and here (http://www2.rosa.ro/index.php/en/news-menu/stiri/204-raspunsul-agentiei-spatiale-romane-cu-privire-la-recenta-campanie-de-dezinformare-publica)
Post by: wally on 11/27/2016 03:53 pm
These buffoons (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/exomars.htm) say they did some testing of the parachutes..Please find another source citing this. For background, see here (http://www2.rosa.ro/index.php/en/news-menu/stiri/197-position-of-the-romanian-space-agency-on-romania-s-contribution-and-benefits-as-member-state-of-esa) and here (http://www2.rosa.ro/index.php/en/news-menu/stiri/204-raspunsul-agentiei-spatiale-romane-cu-privire-la-recenta-campanie-de-dezinformare-publica)
I'm well aware of the background, I just wanted to find out other sources for ARCA's involvement in testing ExoMars parachutes.
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/29/2016 09:41 am
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/First_views_of_Mars_show_potential_for_ESA_s_new_orbiter
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/29/2016 12:12 pm
http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1262&tx_news_pi1[news]=60&tx_news_pi1[controller]=News&tx_news_pi1[action]=detail&cHash=415ec465213ca5b1b50bb1297bf32e40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/29/2016 03:15 pm
These buffoons (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/exomars.htm) say they did some testing of the parachutes..Please find another source citing this. For background, see here (http://www2.rosa.ro/index.php/en/news-menu/stiri/197-position-of-the-romanian-space-agency-on-romania-s-contribution-and-benefits-as-member-state-of-esa) and here (http://www2.rosa.ro/index.php/en/news-menu/stiri/204-raspunsul-agentiei-spatiale-romane-cu-privire-la-recenta-campanie-de-dezinformare-publica)
I'm well aware of the background, I just wanted to find out other sources for ARCA's involvement in testing ExoMars parachutes.
ARCA didn't test the parachute, per se, the parachutes were designed, developed, and tested by others, as described by savuporo. The drop test ARCA did tested the instrumentation / avionics that deployed the parachute.
Post by: catfry on 11/29/2016 04:31 pm
More results from the Russian space instruments. These include graphics that aren't seen on ESA's press release. Data from Bulgarian-built Lyulin-MO component aboard FREND is also available:
http://exomars.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=1262&tx_news_pi1[news]=60&tx_news_pi1[controller]=News&tx_news_pi1[action]=detail&cHash=415ec465213ca5b1b50bb1297bf32e40
Would you mind summarizing the text? I tried google translate but it doesn't play nice and I did not understand much.
are there comments about performance? any comments about interpretation of the data?
Post by: redliox on 11/29/2016 05:47 pm
FIRST IMAGES!!!
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/First_views_of_Mars_show_potential_for_ESA_s_new_orbiter
Very good first images too! The fact ESA managed to get resolution down to under 3 meters/pixel is impressive; on par to MRO's HiRISE capability. This will make for a good bonus to the primary mission searching for methane.
Hope to hear if they managed to image Phobos or not too.
At this point I'm willing to push past Schiaparelli and see how the rest of the mission goes.
Post by: Targeteer on 11/29/2016 11:05 pm
A NASA radio on Europe's Trace Gas Orbiter, which reached Mars in October 2016, has succeeded in its first test of receiving data from NASA Mars rovers, both Opportunity and Curiosity. This graphic depicts the geometry of the relay from Opportunity to the orbiter, which then sent the data to Earth.
Data from each of the two rovers active on Mars reached Earth last week in the successful first relay test of a NASA radio aboard Europe's new Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO).
The transmissions from NASA rovers Opportunity and Curiosity, received by one of the twin Electra radios on the orbiter on Nov. 22, mark a strengthening of the international telecommunications network supporting Mars exploration. The orbiter's main radio for communications with Earth subsequently relayed onward to Earth the data received by Electra.
The European Space Agency's (ESA's) ExoMars/Trace Gas Orbiter reached Mars on Oct. 19, 2016. As planned, its initial orbit shape is highly elliptical, ranging from as far as 60,000 miles (98,000 kilometers) above the surface to less than 200 miles (less than 310 kilometers). Each loop takes 4.2 days to complete.
Frequent use of TGO's relay capability to support Mars rover operations is planned to begin more than a year from now. That's after the orbiter finishes adjusting its orbit to a near-circular path about 250 miles (400 kilometers) above Mars' surface. Meanwhile, four other active Mars orbiters also carry radios that can provide relay service for missions on the surface of Mars. The two active rovers routinely send data homeward via NASA orbiters Mars Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO).
"The arrival of ESA's Trace Gas Orbiter at Mars, with its NASA-provided Electra relay payload on board, represents a significant step forward in our Mars relay capabilities," said Chad Edwards, manager of the Mars Relay Network Office within the Mars Exploration Program at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. "In concert with our three existing NASA orbiters and ESA's earlier Mars Express orbiter, we now have a truly international Mars relay network that will greatly increase the amount of data that future Mars landers and rovers can return from the surface of the Red Planet."
NASA is on an ambitious journey to Mars that will include sending humans to the Red Planet. Current and future robotic spacecraft are leading the way and will prepare an infrastructure in advance for human missions.
The JPL-designed Electra radios include special features for relaying data from a rover or stationary lander to an orbiter passing overhead. Relay of information from Mars-surface craft to Mars orbiters, then from the Mars orbiters to Earth, enables receiving much more data from the surface missions than would be possible with a direct-to-Earth radio link from the rovers or landers.
"We already have almost 13 years' experience using ESA's Mars Express as an on-call backup for data relay from active Mars rovers, and TGO will greatly expand this to routine science-data relay," said Michel Denis, TGO flight director at ESA's European Space Operations Centre, Darmstadt, Germany. "In 2020, TGO will extend this relay support to ESA's ExoMars rover and the Russian Surface Platform, an important capability together with its science mission that enhances the international data network at Mars."
As an example of Electra capabilities, during a relay session between an Electra on the surface and one on an orbiter, the radios can maximize data volume by actively adjusting the data rate to be slower when the orbiter is near the horizon from the surface robot's perspective, faster when it is overhead.
Curiosity and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter already use Electra technology to relay data. NASA's Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) spacecraft, in orbit since 2014, also carries an Electra radio.
Due to improvements in the newest Electra radios and reduced interference levels, TGO's relay radios are expected to offer relay performance about double that of MRO's Electra.
TGO's main X-band radio uses a dish antenna 87 inches (2.2 meters) in diameter to communicate with Earth-based antenna networks operated by ESA, NASA and Russia.
JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Curiosity, Opportunity, MRO and Odyssey missions, and NASA's role in the ESA ExoMars program for the NASA Science Mission Directorate, Washington.
For more about ESA's ExoMars program, including TGO, visit:
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/
For more information about NASA's journey to Mars, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/journeytoma
Post by: catdlr on 11/30/2016 05:09 am
European Space Agency, ESA
Published on Nov 29, 2016
A showcase of some of the first and highest resolution images acquired by the Colour and Stereo Surface Imaging System (CaSSIS) on the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter on 22 November 2016.
The first image sequence shown was taken at a distance of 5300 km with a resolution of 60 m/pixel, about 44 minutes before closest approach. It illustrates how CaSSIS acquires data by taking images in colour simultaneously: at panchromatic, red, near-infrared and blue wavelengths.
A 3D reconstruction of a small area in Noctis Labyrinthus is also presented, based on a stereo pair of images taken, and presented with an altitude map with a resolution of less than 20 m.
Next, a spectacular high-resolution image sequence acquired during closest approach of 235 km altitude is presented. At this time, the spacecraft was flying over the Hebes Chasma region. The highest resolution data acquired is at 2.8 m/pixel. The flyover is shown at half the speed at which the data were acquired.
Then, an image swath about 25 km wide is shown of Arisa Chasmata, which is located on the flanks of a large volcano on Mars named Arsia Mons.
Finally, a close up of a 1.4 km-diameter crater sitting in the rim of a much larger crater near the Mars equator is presented. This image was acquired at 7.2 m/pixel.
This video was produced by the CaSSIS camera team and the University of Bern.
Credit: ESA/Roscosmos/ExoMars/CaSSIS/UniBE
https://youtu.be/opqz5mM8JMA?t=001
https://youtu.be/opqz5mM8JMA
Post by: mcgyver on 12/02/2016 07:45 am
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_048120_1780 (http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_048120_1780)
Second image of stereo pair:
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_048041_1780
Post by: mcgyver on 12/05/2016 08:25 am
http://www.ibtimes.com/exomars-2020-european-space-agency-gets-additional-460-million-mars-rover-mission-2454268
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 12/05/2016 11:29 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40046.80
Post by: mcgyver on 12/05/2016 11:59 am
The 2020 thread is here;I wrote it here because Schiaparelli failure could had affected (*) Mars 2020 development.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40046.80 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40046.80)
(*) Or which time I should use in English... :-[
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 12/06/2016 10:29 am
Post by: plutogno on 12/06/2016 01:27 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/ExoMars_orbiter_images_Phobos
Post by: Blackstar on 12/07/2016 02:16 am
I was at a Phobos workshop this past summer and somebody talked about the MAVEN mission. Apparently MAVEN's orbit gives it some good passes near Phobos and with a little tweaking it could have had some incredibly close passes of Phobos (I think the speaker said that they are already some of the closest passes and they could have gone very close). The problem is that MAVEN lacks an imager. It's a shame, because even a relatively small camera could have enabled the best quality Phobos images ever. Opportunity lost.
Post by: Star One on 12/07/2016 06:30 am
Post by: Svetoslav on 12/07/2016 06:46 am
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/07/2016 01:54 pm
I suppose you could ask why Juno doesn't have a better camera but for their missions where every KG counts that's the choices that have had to be made.Wasn't Juno originally based lined without a camera. With the camera only being added later after a public outcry?
Post by: ccdengr on 12/07/2016 02:22 pm
The problem is that MAVEN lacks an imager. It's a shame, because even a relatively small camera could have enabled the best quality Phobos images ever.Depends on what you mean by relatively small. MOC on MGS took the highest-resolution images of Phobos to date with a mass of about 23 kg. MOC had a focal length of 3.5 meters, and a smaller, wider-angle camera would have had to get much closer even to get the same resolution. AFAIK, a MOC-sized camera was never under consideration for MAVEN.
Post by: ccdengr on 12/07/2016 02:25 pm
Wasn't Juno originally based lined without a camera. With the camera only being added later after a public outcry?The camera was added during the mission Phase A study. As far as I know this was a decision by the science team funded by the E/PO budget -- "public outcry" doesn't typically come with extra funding.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/07/2016 04:11 pm
Opportunity not lost, it was never available. MAVEN is an atmosphere mission. You can't turn it into an atmosphere plus imaging mission without blowing the budget. So you increase the budget, add a camera, and someone says 'but we really need better characterization of the magnetic anomalies - let's add a magnetometer' - and so on. If you want close images of Phobos (and better yet, Deimos, where they are really needed) - propose a satellite mission or a new imaging mission.
Post by: ccdengr on 12/08/2016 02:21 am
MAVEN is an atmosphere mission. You can't turn it into an atmosphere plus imaging mission without blowing the budget.Well, it depends on how expensive a camera you add, doesn't it? At any rate, I agree that adding a camera large enough to improve on Phobos imaging would have been out of scope.
A simpler camera to do weather monitoring, on the other hand, might well have been easy to add. The MAVEN PI was pretty hard over on cost containment so this didn't happen.
Post by: Star One on 12/08/2016 12:13 pm
Wasn't Juno originally based lined without a camera. With the camera only being added later after a public outcry?The camera was added during the mission Phase A study. As far as I know this was a decision by the science team funded by the E/PO budget -- "public outcry" doesn't typically come with extra funding.
Do you mean for public outreach?
Post by: Sam Ho on 12/08/2016 02:04 pm
Wasn't Juno originally based lined without a camera. With the camera only being added later after a public outcry?The camera was added during the mission Phase A study. As far as I know this was a decision by the science team funded by the E/PO budget -- "public outcry" doesn't typically come with extra funding.
Do you mean for public outreach?
Quote
The scientific themes of the Juno mission are to study the interior, atmosphere, and magnetosphere of Jupiter (Bolton et al., this issue). The spacecraft has been highly optimized for the operation of its seven science instruments, leading to a solar-powered, sun-pointing, spinning design. Such a platform presents challenges for imaging, both from motion blur and pointing geometry. But it was appreciated that visible imaging is an important component of public engagement for any mission. So a visible camera, Junocam, was included primarily for education and public outreach (EPO), funded from the mission’s EPO budget and given a fairly constrained allocation of spacecraft mass resources.
From "Junocam: Juno’s Outreach Camera" in Space Sci Rev, DOI 10.1007/s11214-014-0079-x
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/pub/e/downloads/JunoCam_Junos_Outreach_Camera.pdf
But, we're in the Exomars thread here.
Post by: Blackstar on 12/08/2016 07:07 pm
"The problem is that MAVEN lacks an imager. It's a shame, because even a relatively small camera could have enabled the best quality Phobos images ever. Opportunity lost."
Opportunity not lost, it was never available. MAVEN is an atmosphere mission. You can't turn it into an atmosphere plus imaging mission without blowing the budget. So you increase the budget, add a camera, and someone says 'but we really need better characterization of the magnetic anomalies - let's add a magnetometer' - and so on. If you want close images of Phobos (and better yet, Deimos, where they are really needed) - propose a satellite mission or a new imaging mission.
Yes, I'm a little bit familiar with that issue.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/08/2016 07:24 pm
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/08/2016 07:35 pm
But this thread is wandering and wandering. The point of this thread's orbiter is "trace gasses". Like Juno and MAVEN, the idea is to look inside/around the planet at processes, which means "particles and fields".
When you design a mission, you can't have it be a "jack of all trades". They have to do extreme things, to get the mission data product. Among other things, the orbits and SC design compromises are radically different.
Particles and fields change in flux density, energy distribution/deposition, and speciation at different locations around a planet. And in the case of Juno, lifetime/survival of the mission depends on such very narrowly.
As to Phobos, the interest there is fields and dust. You'd get far better images out of a HiRISE shot than anything you could put on other SC at Mars - it's hard to compete with a dedicated imaging platform, so its not like you can superglue a point and shoot on the outside and hope to get anything useful.
As to the lander/chutes/IMU/GNC, yes the chutes were well evaluated, and doubt you'll get a good answer about what went wrong with the mission yet. Saturation of the inertial platform sensors and the means to "filter" navigation inputs are well known issues, and the GNC envelope of control starts before chute ejection and continues all the way down.
Suggest you follow the timeline of events of the mission as predicted against actuals as the means to frame questions and don't assume insufficient equipment/design as a lazy assertion.
Oh, and there are surprises on every mission. MAVEN didn't expect a comet on arrival at Mars, so it wasn't "armored" for such an encounter, nor were certain instruments setup for measurements it could have done. So yes there are always "missed opportunities" because we don't know the future, we can only do best within budget and get what we can with what works out to be.
Post by: mcgyver on 12/09/2016 05:03 pm
I read that juno camera is not even considered "scientific payload", it's there just for public.Wasn't Juno originally based lined without a camera. With the camera only being added later after a public outcry?The camera was added during the mission Phase A study. As far as I know this was a decision by the science team funded by the E/PO budget -- "public outcry" doesn't typically come with extra funding.
Post by: Svetoslav on 12/09/2016 05:28 pm
I read that juno camera is not even considered "scientific payload", it's there just for public.
And that's why they're not publishing the photos in almost-real time, like they do with Cassini or Curiosity?
Post by: catdlr on 12/13/2016 10:05 am
ESA
Published on Dec 13, 2016
2016 has been an eventful and promising year for ESA’s ExoMars mission. After successfully placing the Trace Gas Orbiter into Mars’ orbit on 19 October, the orbiter has sent back its first images, tested its instruments and performed in orbit calibration measurements and health checks.
https://youtu.be/rNOxlcWST0Y?t=001
https://youtu.be/rNOxlcWST0Y
Post by: Lar on 12/14/2016 08:04 pm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/european-space-agency-mars-lander-esa-schiaparelli-why-explained-red-planet-a7437336.html
Post by: catdlr on 12/17/2016 01:14 am
European Space Agency, ESA
Published on Dec 16, 2016
An overview animation of the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter’s expected path around Mars between October 2016 and December 2017.
The spacecraft entered orbit on 19 October 2016, on a highly elliptical path that took it between about 250 km and 98 000 km from the planet in about 4.2 days.
The main science mission is intended to take place from a near-circular 400 km orbit, starting in early 2018. The spacecraft will achieve this orbit by aerobraking – using the planet’s atmosphere to slow down gradually.First, on 19 January 2017, the angle of the orbit will be changed to 74º with respect to the equator, so that science observations can cover most of the planet.
Next, to get into an aerobraking orbit, the craft will fire its thrusters in early February to reach 200 x 33 475 km, which will also reduce its orbital period to 24 hours.
Aerobraking is planned to begin on 15 March, with a series of seven manoeuvres – about one every three days – that will steadily lower the craft’s altitude at its point of closest approach, from 200 km to about 114 km. Then the atmosphere will take over, gradually reducing the most distant part of the orbit.
Final manoeuvres are expected at the end of 2017 to circularise the orbit at an altitude of about 400 km, whereupon the science mission can begin.
The animation is based on data available as of end-2016, but the actual timing of the various manoeuvres may be subject to change as operational plans develop during 2017.
More about ExoMars:
http://www.esa.int/exomars
https://youtu.be/oOcrznm629Q?t=001
https://youtu.be/oOcrznm629Q
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/01/2017 01:15 pm
Source: Twitter - https://twitter.com/ExoMars_CaSSIS/with_replies
Post by: eeergo on 02/07/2017 02:00 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Angling_up_for_Mars_science
Aerobraking scheduled to start in around a month. During this intervening time, final instrument calibrations will be performed, to allow for the start of regular science operations later on.
Post by: plutogno on 02/07/2017 04:48 pm
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2017/02/03/update-on-tgo-data-relay/
Post by: Blackstar on 02/07/2017 05:44 pm
"Since then, we have kept an eye out for an opportunity to test, on the return link, the Adaptative Data Rate (ADR) functionality with MSL Curiosity, potentially during the first half of March – before TGO starts 'aerobraking', expected to begin around 15 March (see Skimming an alien atmosphere). This would allow maximising the return link efficiency, but the geometry (TGO elevation and TGO-MSL distance when in visibility), is unfavourable for this test during the first two weeks in March, which is our final relay test option for TGO before starting aerobraking. As a result, an ADR test will have to wait for a future opportunity.
In fact, this test may have to wait until the end of TGO aerobraking in the first half of 2018. During the aerobraking phase – which will be extended by the Mars-Sun-Earth solar conjunction in July-August 2017 – no relay test activity with any of the rovers is, as of today, foreseen."
Post by: bolun on 02/27/2017 07:57 pm
Next week, the ExoMars orbiter will devote two days to making important calibration measurements at the Red Planet, which are needed for the science phase of the mission that will begin next year.
Credits: ESA, CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/08/2017 09:32 am
https://twitter.com/ExoMars_NOMAD
NOMAD received the data from all four orbits during MCO-2. The team is busy analysing. The status of the instrument is nominal. :) #ExoMars
Post by: redliox on 03/08/2017 03:45 pm
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/08/2017 04:57 pm
Literally a week away from Europe's first attempt at aerobraking now?Yep after ME SC bus was determined to not be strong enough for traditional aerobraking and the fact the ME was a quickly built to re fly the Mars-96 instruments.
Post by: bolun on 03/08/2017 07:32 pm
Literally a week away from Europe's first attempt at aerobraking now?Yep after ME SC bus was determined to not be strong enough for traditional aerobraking and the fact the ME was a quickly built to re fly the Mars-96 instruments.
Venus Express was the first european probe that performed aerobraking manoeuvres.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2181.msg1213672#msg1213672
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/11/2017 11:02 am
http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/events/2017/73525-the-exomars-trace-gas-orbiter-mission-to-mars-and-the-search-for-signs-of-life
The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission to Mars and the search for signs of life
Event time: 1:30pm until 3:00pm
Event date: 14th March 2017
Speaker: Dr. Manish Patel (The Open University)
Searching for signs of life beyond the Earth is a one of the primary aims of space exploration. The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) is a mission to Mars, which seeks to answer this question.
TGO is a joint European-Russian mission to explore the atmosphere of Mars from orbit, and demonstrate Europe’s ability to land a spacecraft on Mars for the first time. The mission launched in March 2016, with Mars arrival and ‘landing’ on 19th October 2016. Investigating trace gases in the atmosphere is the primary purpose of the mission – gases such as methane, and ozone. Methane is a particularly interesting gas, in that its variable presence in the atmosphere of Mars is not expected; on Earth, the majority of the methane in the terrestrial atmosphere is produced by life. Hence, its presence on Mars opens up a tantalising possibility that this trace gas may be a sign of the presence of (past or present) life on Mars.
The Open University co-leads one of the methane hunting instruments (called NOMAD). Here, I will present the mission and its background to you, and update you on the latest status of the mission and the results to date from the orbiter and the fate of the lander.
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/14/2017 09:01 am
Post by: Star One on 03/14/2017 09:24 am
UPDATE: An interesting event:
http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/events/2017/73525-the-exomars-trace-gas-orbiter-mission-to-mars-and-the-search-for-signs-of-life
The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission to Mars and the search for signs of life
Event time: 1:30pm until 3:00pm
Event date: 14th March 2017
Speaker: Dr. Manish Patel (The Open University)
Searching for signs of life beyond the Earth is a one of the primary aims of space exploration. The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) is a mission to Mars, which seeks to answer this question.
TGO is a joint European-Russian mission to explore the atmosphere of Mars from orbit, and demonstrate Europe’s ability to land a spacecraft on Mars for the first time. The mission launched in March 2016, with Mars arrival and ‘landing’ on 19th October 2016. Investigating trace gases in the atmosphere is the primary purpose of the mission – gases such as methane, and ozone. Methane is a particularly interesting gas, in that its variable presence in the atmosphere of Mars is not expected; on Earth, the majority of the methane in the terrestrial atmosphere is produced by life. Hence, its presence on Mars opens up a tantalising possibility that this trace gas may be a sign of the presence of (past or present) life on Mars.
The Open University co-leads one of the methane hunting instruments (called NOMAD). Here, I will present the mission and its background to you, and update you on the latest status of the mission and the results to date from the orbiter and the fate of the lander.
Are there many results given that it isn't in its science orbit yet?
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/14/2017 09:31 am
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/15/2017 06:00 am
Deimos Space Planetary Entry Toolbox (PETBox) for Mission Engineering and the related design methodology for Atmospheric Flight are now Flight Qualified in both Earth and Mars
Schiaparelli separated from the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) on October 16th 2016 and reached Mars three days later. It performed a nominal hypersonic entry with a pre-defined flight path angle, decreasing its velocity until reaching subsonic regime under the parachute. During the descent phase an anomaly occurred, and the demonstrator module separated from the backshell earlier than expected, compromising the landing phase. During the whole EDL mission, Schiaparelli was able to communicate with the TGO and with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, transmitting its real time on-board telemetry. The data collected is extremely valuable for the preparation of the 2020 mission.
The post-flight results have contributed to the validation of key technologies and design tools, including the Deimos Space Planetary Entry Toolbox (PETBox) for Mission Engineering and the related design methodology for Atmospheric Flight. As a result, these self-developed technologies are now Flight Qualified for missions in Earth (through the successful ESA IXV mission) and Mars.
Deimos Space has been involved in ExoMars since 2004, carrying out technical activities in the Mission Engineering and Guidance, Navigation and Control domains for more than 12 years. This high commitment to the ExoMars programme has allowed the company to be the first organisation to submit a paper about ExoMars 2016 Post-Flight analyses to international conferences. The results of these studies will be showcased in detail at the upcoming 14th International Planetary Probe Workshop (The Hague, The Netherlands) and International Astronautical Congress 2017 (Adelaide, Australia).
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/16/2017 09:12 am
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/ExoMars_science_checkout_completed_and_aerobraking_begins
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/27/2017 01:07 pm
http://oro.open.ac.uk/48861/1/Ferri_MAMOGranada2017.pdf
A quick summary of the article:
-- Meeting the goals of the AMELIA scientific objectives depends on the radio signal and the telemetry data set, but these data are still under embargo due to crash investigations
--Prior to Schiaparelli mission, seven profiles of Mars atmosphere density have been reported by the missions Viking 1, 2, Mars Pathfinder, Spirit and Oppy, Phoenix, Curiosity
--Schiaparelli has sent new in situ measurements during the latest martian dust season, they will enrich the knowledge
--Data from AMELIA will be compared to independent remotely sensed data like Mars Climate Sounder
Post by: bolun on 04/03/2017 07:41 pm
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2017/03/24/aerobraking-so-far-so-good/
TGO feels the burn
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2017/03/17/tgo_feels_the_burn/
Aerobraking eases TGO into final martian orbit
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2017/03/30/aerobraking-eases-tgo-into-final-martian-orbit/
Post by: Svetoslav on 05/24/2017 01:48 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_completed
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/24/2017 01:50 pm
Schiaparelli investigation has been completed:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_completed
Report attached.
Post by: Flying Beaver on 05/24/2017 07:12 pm
Quote
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ANOMALY
The sequence (timeline) of the events is reported below with respect to UTC time.
a) Separation from TGO on 16/10/2016 at 14:42:00.
b) Awakening from hibernation on 19/10/2016 at 13:29:48.
c) Entry in the Mars atmosphere (EIP) detected at 14:42:22 through accelerometers.
d) Between EIP and Parachute Deployment triggering, an unexpected evolution in the spin rate of
the EDM was noticed.
e) At 14:45:23 the parachute deployment was triggered (trigger is the g-level).
- The dynamic conditions at the moment of parachute deployment derived from telemetry
showed a total angle of attack (AOA) estimated of about 6.5 deg and a lateral angular rate <
3 deg/s
f) Parachute deployment time (time from mortar firing to peak load factor) was circa 1 sec (in line
with the predictions).
- The parachute was deployed, and the parachute inflation triggered some oscillations of
Schiaparelli at a frequency of approximately 2.5 Hz.
- About 0.2 sec after the peak load of the parachute inflation, the IMU measured a pitch angular
rate (angular rate around Z-EDM axis) larger than expected.
- The IMU raised a saturation flag,.
- During the period the IMU saturation flag was set, the GNC Software integrated an angular
rate assumed to be equal to the saturation threshold rate. The integration of this constant
angular rate, during which the EDM was in reality oscillating, led to an error in the GNC
estimated attitude of the EDM of about 165 degrees. This would correspond to an EDM nearly
turned downside up with the front shield side pointing to quasi-zenith.
- After the parachute inflation, the oscillatory motion of Schiaparelli under its parachute was
mostly damped and Schiaparelli was descending at a nominal descent rate, with very small
oscillations (< 3 deg) around pitch and yaw axis.
- After parachute inflation the angular acceleration around the spin axis changed again
g) The Front Shield was jettisoned as planned 40s after parachute deployment (timer based
command) at 14:46:03
h) The RDA was switched on at 14:46:19 (15s after Front Shield separation acknowledgment) and
provided coherent slant ranges, without any indication of anomalies;
- Once the RDA is on, RIL mode, “consistency checks” between IMU and RDA measurements are
performed. The parameters checked are: delta velocity and delta altitude. The altitude is
obtained using the GNC estimated attitude to project the RDA slant ranges on the vertical.
- Because of the error in the estimated attitude that occurred at parachute inflation, the GNC
Software projected the RDA range measurements with an erroneous off-vertical angle and
deduced a negative altitude (cosinus of angles > 90 degrees are negative). There was no check
on board of the plausibility of this altitude calculation
i) Consequently the “consistency check” failed for more than 5 sec. after which the RDA was forced
anyway into the loop based on the logic that landing was impossible without the RDA. The
correctness of the other contributor to the altitude estimation, i.e. the attitude estimate, was not
put in question. The RDA was put in the loop (event signalled by RIL time-out flag at 14:46:46).
- The GNC mode entered was TERMINAL DESCENT where the altitude is scrutinized to release
the Back-Shell and parachute if the altitude is below an on board calculated limit.
EXOMARS 2016 - Schiaparelli Anomaly Inquiry
Reference: DG-I/2017/546/TTN
Date 18/05/2017 Issue 1 Rev 0
Page 13
- Because of the incorrect attitude estimation leading to an estimated negative altitude, the
GNC Software validated the conditions for separating the back-shell and parachute
j) Back-shell separation at 14:46:49.
k) Switch-on of the Reaction Control System (RCS).
- First RCS thruster operation was at 14:46:51 (no backshell avoidance manoeuvre)
l) Switch-off of the RCS 3 seconds later at 14:46:54.
- The criterion for the RCS switch-off was based on the estimation of the EDM energy (as
combination of the altitude and vertical velocity) being lower than a pre-set threshold. Since
the estimation of the altitude was negative and very big, the negative potential energy was
much higher than the positive kinetic energy (square of the velocity) and this criterion was
immediately satisfied the RCS was commanded off as soon as allowed by the thruster
modulation logic. This occurred just 3 seconds after the RCS switch on command when the
capsule was at an altitude of about 3.7 km, leading to a free fall of Schiaparelli and to the
impact on Mars surface about 34 seconds later.
m) The Touch Down occurred at 14:47:28 corresponding to the crash of the surface platform on the
surface of Mars at an estimated velocity of ≈150 m/s. The expected landing time was 14:48:05
(some 37s later).
Post by: baldusi on 05/24/2017 07:38 pm
Post by: vjkane on 05/24/2017 10:01 pm
Well, go figure, a saturation on a gyro during parachute deployment meant that they integrated everything else assuming that the capsule was upside down, and thus everything was negative. But that happened many seconds later. Quite interesting. It is exactly the sort of error that normally could be expected, but for this level of requirement shouldn't. Always check saturation conditions!And we learned from the '98 Polar Lander to always fully test debounce routines.
My take on the ESA lander report: they weren't anal enough about the simulations and testing.
Post by: redliox on 05/24/2017 11:02 pm
Well, go figure, a saturation on a gyro during parachute deployment meant that they integrated everything else assuming that the capsule was upside down, and thus everything was negative. But that happened many seconds later. Quite interesting. It is exactly the sort of error that normally could be expected, but for this level of requirement shouldn't. Always check saturation conditions!And we learned from the '98 Polar Lander to always fully test debounce routines.
My take on the ESA lander report: they weren't anal enough about the simulations and testing.
Agreed, and apparently that was a similar problem with Beagle 2. All 3 missions suffered from not having enough of a budget for testing; virtually all of their problems could have been avoided. At least ESA seems to have nailed down getting into orbit around Mars which poor JAXA still has yet to achieve. Let's hope the ExoMars orbiter aerobrakes without incident while we're on the subject of testing hardware.
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 05/25/2017 03:48 pm
[...]All 3 missions suffered from not having enough of a budget for testing; virtually all of their problems could have been avoided. [...]
I can't understand why they have to risk a mission because of that. It makes no sense.
Post by: Blackstar on 05/25/2017 06:06 pm
[...]All 3 missions suffered from not having enough of a budget for testing; virtually all of their problems could have been avoided. [...]
I can't understand why they have to risk a mission because of that. It makes no sense.
Actually, I think there is a (bad) logic to it:
You are on a restricted budget. When you start to run tight on money, you cannot cut things off of the spacecraft to save money because it just does not work that way. Plus, you only run short of money once you have started to build things. So that means that testing is doubly vulnerable to cutting, both because it can be cut, and because it comes at the end of a program development, when the money is tightest.
The only way to get around this is with strong program management and program management rules. For instance, rules about how you manage budget reserves. I don't know how all of that works, but one solution is that some of the budget reserves are controlled NOT by the program itself, but above the program, by the oversight managers. That means that the program cannot eat up its budget reserves on its own, but has to ask for permission. (And if they keep coming in asking for permission to use up their reserves, they will get replaced.) There are also ways to hold some of the reserves for different phases of development at different levels--some of it held within the program, some reserves (for specific phases) held outside of the program.
Post by: Blackstar on 05/25/2017 06:21 pm
RECOMMENDATIONS
These are the recommendations of the Commission for future missions which can be found in the
report; referenced to the section in which they occur.
Recommendation 1 (sec. 4.2.2.)
Future lander missions should be under the responsibility of an Agency with appropriate
capability and resources to manage it. The lander/orbiter mission should be managed as an
integrated whole. Nationally-funded science instruments should be included in the lander
on the same basis as on the orbiter.
Recommendation 2 (sec. 4.2.2.)
For future science payloads which are critical to overall mission success or have a very high
public profile, the ESA Executive should make a formal, comprehensive assessment of all
aspects of proposals including technical, management and finance, and advise SPC
accordingly before acceptance. If the assessme nt is not positive, ESA should advise the SPC
not to accept the proposal.
Recommendation 3 (sec. 4.3.2.)
Sponsoring Agencies of nationally-funded contributions to ESA projects should ensure that
the required financing is committed at the outset to meet the estimated Cost at Completion
and require that a structured development programme is established.
Recommendation 4 (sec. 4.3.2.)
In addition to the ESA-led reviews of interfaces, formal Project Reviews of nationally funded
contributions to ESA missions should be undertaken by the sponsoring Agency to a
standard agreed with ESA and should cover the entire project.
Recommendation 5 (sec. 4.4.2.)
When an independent review of a nationally-funded project, such as the Casani review of
Beagle 2, is commissioned, it is essential that ESA and the Sponsoring Agency ensure that
its recommendations are properly dispositioned and those which are agreed are actioned
and followed up through a formal process.
Recommendation 6 (sec. 4.5.2.)
For future projects, Heads of Agreement or similar formal arrangements between
cooperating entities, ESA, and national sponsors, should be put in place at the outset of
projects and should include formal consultations at key stages of the project to jointly
consider its status.
Recommendation 7 (sec. 4.5.2.)
Fixed price contracting should be avoided solely as a mechanism for controlling costs, and
used only where the sponsor and contractor are in alignment on the requirements and
scope of the work and the sharing of risks between the m. Both parties should be confident
that the contractor has sufficient margins to manage his uncertainties and risks.
Recommendation 8 (sec. 4.6.2.)
For future high-profile/high-risk projects, ESA and any Sponsoring Agency should manage
the expectations of the outcome of the project in a balanced and objective way to prepare
for both success and failure.
Recommendation 9 (sec. 5.1.1.)
At the start of a programme, the funding authority(ies) should require that there is
system-level documentation. This is necessary to provide all partners with the technical
requirements for the project and sufficient design description and justification such that
the margins and risks being taken in each partner's area of responsibility are visible.
Recommendation 10 (sec. 5.2.1.)
Future planetary missions should be designed with robust margins to cope with the
inherent uncertainties, and they should not be initiated without adequate and timely
resources to achieve that.
Recommendation 11 (sec. 5.2.2.)
Future planetary entry missions should include a minimum telemetry of critical
performance measurements and spacecraft health status during mission critical phases
such as entry and descent.
Recommendation 12 (sec. 5.2.3.)
For future planetary entry missions, a more robust communications system should be used,
allowing direct commanding of the lander for essential actuations and resets without
software involvement - enabling recoveries in catastrophic situations.
Recommendation 13 (sec. 5.3.1.)
Planetary probe missions involving high-level shocks from pyros and other events should
undergo representative shock environmental testing at system level.
Recommendation 14 (sec. 5.3.2.)
Adequate and realistic deployment tests should be performed, and sufficient time and
resources must be available in the development of a new planetary mission.
Recommendation 15 (sec. 5.4.1.2.)
Elimination of internal connectors for mass saving should be avoided if at all possible. But
if unavoidable, a stringent system of check and independent cross-check should be followed
during the final wiring operation.
Recommendation 16 (sec. 5.4.3.)
A back-up for the entry detection event (T0) must be included in the design of planetary
entry probes.
Recommendation 17 (sec. 5.4.4.)
Future planetary entry missions should include a release of the back cover and front shield
which is aerodynamically stable and analytically predictable to avoid uncontrolled re -
contact of front shield with the lander.
Recommendation 18 (sec. 5.4.4.)
Sufficient difference between ballistic coefficients of all separated items, eg. back cover
assembly and the main parachute, or other positive means, must be ensured to exclude
collision after separation.
Recommendation 19 (sec. 5.4.7.)
Adequate competencies in air-bag and parachute technology must be available for future
European planetary missions, making best use of existing expertise e.g. in USA and Russia.
Post by: woods170 on 05/25/2017 07:14 pm
ESA has made this basic error (not thoroughly testing border cases) before. Remember how Ariane 501 got lost?[...]All 3 missions suffered from not having enough of a budget for testing; virtually all of their problems could have been avoided. [...]
I can't understand why they have to risk a mission because of that. It makes no sense.
Oh btw: Beagle 2 was NOT a purely ESA mission. It was a UK mission that just managed to hitch a ride on Mars Express.
Post by: vjkane on 05/25/2017 09:30 pm
Every space agency has made this error. One of the reasons they do such thorough investigations is to learn from them. I don't know that the same error has been made twice.ESA has made this basic error (not thoroughly testing border cases) before. Remember how Ariane 501 got lost?[...]All 3 missions suffered from not having enough of a budget for testing; virtually all of their problems could have been avoided. [...]
I can't understand why they have to risk a mission because of that. It makes no sense.
Oh btw: Beagle 2 was NOT a purely ESA mission. It was a UK mission that just managed to hitch a ride on Mars Express.
Post by: ccdengr on 05/25/2017 09:43 pm
Quote
It should be borne in mind that if the persistence time of the IMU saturation flag would have been 15 ms the landing would probably have been successful, in which case the other root causes would probably never have been identified.
In other words, there were a bunch of deficiencies, but most of them probably wouldn't have mattered. It makes you wonder how many undetected issues are present in every successful mission.
Post by: vjkane on 05/25/2017 11:53 pm
People seem to be skipping over this item:There have been studies that show that for computer programs, anything over a 100 lines almost always has bugs. I suspect that project management of space missions is the same -- they all have deficiencies. So you over design and you test as you will fly and fly as you tested.QuoteIt should be borne in mind that if the persistence time of the IMU saturation flag would have been 15 ms the landing would probably have been successful, in which case the other root causes would probably never have been identified.
In other words, there were a bunch of deficiencies, but most of them probably wouldn't have mattered. It makes you wonder how many undetected issues are present in every successful mission.
Post by: redliox on 05/26/2017 06:00 am
Post by: mcgyver on 05/26/2017 12:20 pm
This is not the case.People seem to be skipping over this item:There have been studies that show that for computer programs, anything over a 100 lines almost always has bugs.QuoteIt should be borne in mind that if the persistence time of the IMU saturation flag would have been 15 ms the landing would probably have been successful, in which case the other root causes would probably never have been identified.
In other words, there were a bunch of deficiencies, but most of them probably wouldn't have mattered. It makes you wonder how many undetected issues are present in every successful mission.
Schiaparelli SW had not a bug (=bad implementation of design). It had a bad design.
And you shouldn't rely on tests if you just didn't write the needed instructions in the SW!
We lost a mission due to a missing "IF" statement!!!!
Post by: denis on 05/26/2017 07:47 pm
This is not the case.
Schiaparelli SW had not a bug (=bad implementation of design). It had a bad design.
And you shouldn't rely on tests if you just didn't write the needed instructions in the SW!
We lost a mission due to a missing "IF" statement!!!!
They lost a mission because of not realistic assumptions about dynamics of parachute deployment.
That's the real root cause. All the rest comes down from that.
Post by: mcgyver on 05/27/2017 09:09 am
The task of SW robustness is to prevent crash/hang due to "not realistic" inputs. It's a newbie assumption to suppose that all inputs to a SW will be right.This is not the case.
Schiaparelli SW had not a bug (=bad implementation of design). It had a bad design.
And you shouldn't rely on tests if you just didn't write the needed instructions in the SW!
We lost a mission due to a missing "IF" statement!!!!
They lost a mission because of not realistic assumptions about dynamics of parachute deployment.
That's the real root cause. All the rest comes down from that.
Are we in 2017 or 1957?!? Have we got any know-how from 60 years in space??? It's easy: "sh*t happens; in space, it happens more often." (alternative formulation of Murphy's law)
I think they are just trying to "assign" mission failure responsibility to "something" rather than "somebody".
Post by: Blackstar on 05/27/2017 03:21 pm
They lost a mission because of not realistic assumptions about dynamics of parachute deployment.
That's the real root cause. All the rest comes down from that.
It's worth taking a look at what is currently happening with Mars 2020. Very interesting development there. I'll try to summarize as simply as possible:
-Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity used a big parachute that worked.
-NASA did a couple of new technology parachute deployment tests off of Hawaii a couple of years ago, they both failed.
-Both the MSL parachute and the new parachute were simulated on a computer program, and the program said that they would both be successful.
That raised some alarms at NASA: why would the simulation show that both would be successful and yet one failed? Did MSL simply get lucky in 2012? And if MSL got lucky, is it possible that Mars 2020, using the same parachute, might get unlucky?
So NASA is pouring more effort into evaluating the "proven" MSL/Curiosity parachute to make sure that they have a full understanding of it, and full confidence in it.
Just goes to show that the job is never done.
Post by: Blackstar on 05/27/2017 03:26 pm
Are we in 2017 or 1957?!? Have we got any know-how from 60 years in space??? It's easy: "sh*t happens; in space, it happens more often." (alternative formulation of Murphy's law)
I think this brings up an important point about how knowledge accumulates. Yes, it is cumulative--we build upon past knowledge and we add more knowledge to our databases, teaching, etc.
But knowledge is also... I'm grasping for a word here, but perhaps "iterative" is the best description. We forget stuff as a profession/culture/society. People retire, leave, die. When they do, they take their knowledge with them. Some of it is captured in books and databases. But it has to be absorbed by new people. If your teaching and training institutions are not up to snuff, then you lose knowledge. If you do not have a healthy lessons-learning culture, then you lose knowledge.
There are all kinds of quips we can make about those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The point is that we always have to be learning, and re-learning. Always.
Post by: baldusi on 05/27/2017 08:22 pm
Post by: savuporo on 05/27/2017 08:31 pm
They had a sensor with a known saturation possibility and it wasn't properly handled. Without handling all corner cases you are not writing mission critical software.
Spot on. GMV, SENER and ultimately TAS collectively have some soul searching to do.
EDIT: Also, "but we did Monte Carlo simulations!"
Post by: denis on 05/27/2017 09:04 pm
For sure the GNC should have been designed to handle some non-expected saturation of the gyro, but that saturation should have been a non-nominal event.
What is much more concerning is the fact that they were not expecting such high rotation rate (150deg/s) even though existing parachute models (from JPL) predicted it!
So basically they used an equipment (the gyro) which was not adapted for the nominal mission.
Post by: denis on 05/27/2017 09:10 pm
They had a sensor with a known saturation possibility and it wasn't properly handled. Without handling all corner cases you are not writing mission critical software.From reading the description, non-management of the saturation does not even seem the most worrying thing in the overall logic. The fact that the radar data is initially discarded as not reliable but then used anyway - because there is no alternative - does not seem the most well-though decision logic tree...
Post by: savuporo on 05/27/2017 09:26 pm
..So basically they used an equipment (the gyro) which was not adapted for the nominal mission.You can't really make that conclusion, at all. LN-200 has landed on Mars before, and was perfectly adequate to fly even with the short saturation event. Mishandling of saturation led to the splat, even though there was enough sensory information onboard to land it.
Also, everyone knows that parachute dynamics are next to impossible to correctly predict, so that's not really the root of the issue.
EDIT: Also, if they had done an independent review of the GNC architecture out from TAS supervision 3 years ago, this would have been a successful mission.
Post by: denis on 05/27/2017 09:32 pm
You can't really make that conclusion, at all. LN-200 has landed on Mars before, and was perfectly adequate to fly even with the short saturation event. Mishandling of saturation led to the splat, even though there was enough sensory information onboard to land it.But was that using a similar GNC architecture and design ?
Also, everyone knows that parachute dynamics are next to impossible to correctly predict, so that's not really the root of the issue.
Post by: savuporo on 05/27/2017 09:34 pm
Hardware architecture ? Yes. Software and models ? Probably not.You can't really make that conclusion, at all. LN-200 has landed on Mars before, and was perfectly adequate to fly even with the short saturation event. Mishandling of saturation led to the splat, even though there was enough sensory information onboard to land it.But was that using a similar GNC architecture and design ?
Also, everyone knows that parachute dynamics are next to impossible to correctly predict, so that's not really the root of the issue.
Post by: redliox on 05/28/2017 01:41 am
Personally my opinion is we need to move past Schiaparelli, apply whatever concerns we have about ESA's methodology to the next ExoMars missions (on it's own thread), and let this thread focus on the Trace Gas Orbiter.
Post by: mcgyver on 05/29/2017 09:22 am
Definitely a lot of Schiaparelli mourning, nit-picking, and criticism. The whole thing was an engineering testFrom this point of view, the mission was (in theory) a great success: engineers get much more useful data from a failed mission than from a successfull mission. :)
Scientist are probably a bit more disappointed.... but there was not so much science actually planned for this mission, if I remember correctly.
But what is annoying is that actually the engineering data resulting from this mission... were already available, and countermeasures too were already thought of, and written into Space Standards: "hardware can behave weird in space, hence you have to write very robust SW for standalone missions" (standalone = you can't do anything from Earth in real time).
Anyway, I think the Real Root Cause of this mission is just one: not enough time.
Exo2016 was designed&built in hurry; it was initially planned to land on Mars in 2013! Then NASA quit, Russia came in, design was reviewed, money reassigned, task reassigned ... To many things, too short time. This mission quite seems a "placeholder" rather than a real mission: "let's launch something within 2016, no matter what"; the real mission is Exomars2018.... now Exomars2020.
Post by: Star One on 05/29/2017 09:27 am
Definitely a lot of Schiaparelli mourning, nit-picking, and criticism. The whole thing was an engineering testFrom this point of view, the mission was (in theory) a great success: engineers get much more useful data from a failed mission than from a successfull mission. :)
Scientist are probably a bit more disappointed.... but there was not so much science actually planned for this mission, if I remember correctly.
But what is annoying is that actually the engineering data resulting from this mission... were already available, and countermeasures too were already thought of, and written into Space Standards: "hardware can behave weird in space, hence you have to write very robust SW for standalone missions" (standalone = you can't do anything from Earth in real time).
Anyway, I think the Real Root Cause of this mission is just one: not enough time.
Exo2016 was designed&built in hurry; it was initially planned to land on Mars in 2013! Then NASA quit, Russia came in, design was reviewed, money reassigned, task reassigned ... To many things, too short time. This mission quite seems a "placeholder" rather than a real mission: "let's launch something within 2016, no matter what"; the real mission is Exomars2018.... now Exomars2020.
What a ridiculous statement so you think the TGO is just some afterthought. TGO is the main part of this mission and so far has been a complete success.
Post by: Svetoslav on 05/30/2017 06:15 pm
http://thespacereview.com/article/3251/1
"Schiaparelli was primarily a test lander, and test flights are judged by different criteria compared to regular missions. An engineering test is a good one depending on the number of steps executed and the data obtained. Coincidentally, just hours after the report of Schiaparelli was published, the private company Rocket Lab launched its first Electron rocket on a test flight. The rocket failed to reach orbit, but it did reach space and many of the test goals were fulfilled: first stage ignition, stage separation, second stage ignition, and payload fairing separation. The company announced that the test was an overall success and many space enthusiasts thought the same, too. The engineers have the data in their hands and they are happy.
So why isn’t Schiaparelli judged on the same ground? Schiaparelli was also able to execute most of the planned steps successfully."
Post by: savuporo on 05/30/2017 06:31 pm
...the private company Rocket Lab launched its first Electron rocket on a test flight....Answer in bold.
So why isn’t Schiaparelli judged on the same ground? ..
Good writeup though.
One thing that cannot be said is that GNC design team didn't have enough time to work this out: the lander GNC architecture was in development for almost a decade.
Post by: Svetoslav on 05/30/2017 06:55 pm
Answer in bold.
So, we're probably more critical to government agencies, while at the same time more generous to private companies?
Perhaps that's right. We admire private enterpreneurs and tend to forgive them even when they're not doing things in a public way. Both Vector and Rocket Lab refused to stream their first launches live. Both companies didn't report the maximum altitude of the rockets reached.
Government agencies use tax dollars and are sometimes more risk-averse, they also tend to exaggerate their achievements in order to justify money spent. They're also more public (or, at least NASA and ESA try to be public).
I'm a fan of government agencies and private companies and think that both of the models about how we should do things in space have a future.
But I try to judge the missions on equal ground.
Post by: Star One on 05/30/2017 07:50 pm
...the private company Rocket Lab launched its first Electron rocket on a test flight....Answer in bold.
So why isn’t Schiaparelli judged on the same ground? ..
Good writeup though.
One thing that cannot be said is that GNC design team didn't have enough time to work this out: the lander GNC architecture was in development for almost a decade.
That's a rather simplistic and partisan response.
Post by: baldusi on 05/30/2017 11:34 pm
They simply didn't managed corner cases, didn't made a best effort to recover the integrated vector on a sensor saturation condition. But what's worse is that then the selection o valid input was inconsistent and totally wrong. It's like the Progress failure on Soyuz-2.1a, the failure was of fundamental engineering practices.
Failures from lack of experience is fine. From single obscure mistake, is fine. From fundamental handling of high reliability programming, it's not.
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/31/2017 03:06 pm
Personally, I think that Schiaparelli's landing was a failure because of the botched sw engineering process.Agreed, especially since super analytic skills were not needed to see this problem coming. Parachutes on Mars have been tried perhaps a dozen times, and are known to be tricky. So even naive specifications, coding, and tests should call for the software to work no matter what the parachute does, provided only it opens and slows down the craft enough.
[...]
Failures from lack of experience is fine. From single obscure mistake, is fine. From fundamental handling of high reliability programming, it's not.
Post by: savuporo on 05/31/2017 03:53 pm
..Failures from lack of experience is fine. From single obscure mistake, is fine. From fundamental handling of high reliability programming, it's not.
Just a small nitpick: technically the issue wasn't with programming. The software development contractor apparently took the modeled design and implemented as is. Design error, rather than implementation, but it doesn't change the point. This is not how you design high reliability avionics.
Post by: baldusi on 05/31/2017 05:19 pm
..Failures from lack of experience is fine. From single obscure mistake, is fine. From fundamental handling of high reliability programming, it's not.
Just a small nitpick: technically the issue wasn't with programming. The software development contractor apparently took the modeled design and implemented as is. Design error, rather than implementation, but it doesn't change the point. This is not how you design high reliability avionics.
I'm sorry, but I have a certain background in security and even with botched designs, you can't tolerate unhandled corner cases. A sensor saturation condition, even if the models say it won't happen, is a corner case to be handled correctly. Else, just abort the program. Since they did program something in the sensor saturation case, then they should have handled it correctly.
If they had aborted on sensor saturation, because it was specified as a non defined condition, I would have classified it as a specification/design problem alone. But they did take the input and kept going. So it's design/specification, programming and integration problems. All failed processes.
Post by: eeergo on 06/29/2017 05:00 pm
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2017/06/28/tgo-short-summer-break/ (http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2017/06/28/tgo-short-summer-break/)
Quote
On 25 June, the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) will suspend its aerobraking campaign until the end of August due to Mars' conjunction with the Sun.
[...]
Upon arrival at Mars on 19 October last year, the TGO orbit was 33,000 x 205 km, the goal of the approximately 11-month-long aerobraking campaign is to bring this to a 370 x 420 km quasi-circular orbit.
From March to June this year, the orbit duration was reduced from 24 to approximately 14 hours using this aerobraking technique. The target is to reach an orbit that lasts about two hours for the science phase of the mission. As the orbit duration is gradually reduced, the more frequent orbits will require constant communication with the spacecraft – from January 2018 on, deep space antennas from ESA Estrack and NASA DSN will connect to TGO, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
[...]
In May, TGO was a little behind with its descent plan because of this 'safety first' approach. This cautious tactic has helped the team to understand more accurately any possible failures and evolve ways to successfully avoid them. Since this slower beginning (aerobrakign began in full in March), the approach has gradually been made more aggressive, and as a result the craft has caught up to the original plan, and is now slightly ahead of schedule.
Post by: savuporo on 08/16/2017 06:43 am
esaconferencebureau.com/docs/default-source/17c12-docs/ippw14_abstracts_low_res.pdf
Quote
EXOMARS 2016 POST FLIGHT MISSION ANALYSIS OF SCHIAPARELLI COASTING, ENTRY, DESCENT AND LANDING
For the ExoMars2016 Mission, Thales Alenia Space Italia acted as prime contractor, leading the Spacecraft Composite development and verification (including the system design and verification of the EDM and key GNC/EDL technologies). DEIMOS Space has been involved in the Exomars Programme (2016 and 2020 missions) since 2004 providing more than 10 years of technical activities in the areas of End to End (from launch to landing) Mission Engineering and GNC. In particular, for the 2016 mission DEIMOS Space was responsible in Phase E of the Mission Anal- ysis of the Schiaparelli mission, from separation from the TGO to landing on Mars, covering the pre-flight trajectory predictions and performance analysis [1] and the post flight analyses presented here.
Quote
ATMOSPHERIC MARS ENTRY AND LANDING INVESTIGATIONS & ANALYSIS (AMELIA) BY THE EXOMARS 2016 SCHIAPARELLI MODULE
Quote
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ENTRY AND DESCENT RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF EXOMARS 2016 SCHIAPARELLI.
Quote
ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE COMARS+ INSTRUMENTATION PACKAGE DURING THE ENTRY FLIGHT PHASE OF THE EXOMARS SCHIAPARELLI LANDER
etc
Post by: plutogno on 08/29/2017 07:25 am
After an approximately 11-week pause due to Mars conjunction and a major software update, ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) will restart its aerobraking campaign in September.
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2017/08/26/aerobraking-back-to-the-future/
Post by: eeergo on 12/06/2017 10:58 am
New update on the status of aerobraking, still expected to be completed by March 2018 as initial planning suggested. They have switched to short orbit (<~6h) operations.
The post also details a pair of issues encountered since the last update: a flux reduction maneuver was automatically performed (~3km pericenter raising maneuver because of too large deceleration encountered during an atmospheric pass) and a checksum error in a star tracker for which a patch is ready to be uploaded by Thales.
Post by: Svetoslav on 12/06/2017 11:33 am
Post by: Svetoslav on 01/13/2018 06:53 pm
Here's the article:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103517305705
Quote from Abstract: " Data show that during the cruise to Mars and back (6 months in each direction), taken during the declining of solar activity, the crewmembers of future manned flights to Mars will accumulate at least 60% of the total dose limit for the cosmonaut's/astronaut's career in case their shielding conditions are close to the average shielding of Liulin-MO detectors—about 10 g cm−2."
Post by: eeergo on 01/30/2018 02:43 pm
Quote from: Armelle Hubault
Almost there! @ESA_TGO is now below the 3h orbit mark, and still aerobreaking. In blue our orbit this afternoon, in red when we stop, in green the final circularised orbit. Just a month to go, instruments and team getting ready for science!
Post by: redliox on 01/31/2018 12:00 am
https://twitter.com/Marmelleade/status/958350998208172035Quote from: Armelle HubaultAlmost there! @ESA_TGO is now below the 3h orbit mark, and still aerobreaking. In blue our orbit this afternoon, in red when we stop, in green the final circularised orbit. Just a month to go, instruments and team getting ready for science!
Impressive progress! Was it supposed to be February or March that areobraking completes?
Post by: Dalhousie on 01/31/2018 04:38 am
Built in Bulgaria instrument called Lulin-MO takes important measurements about the impact of radiation on astronaut's health.
Here's the article:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103517305705
Quote from Abstract: " Data show that during the cruise to Mars and back (6 months in each direction), taken during the declining of solar activity, the crewmembers of future manned flights to Mars will accumulate at least 60% of the total dose limit for the cosmonaut's/astronaut's career in case their shielding conditions are close to the average shielding of Liulin-MO detectors—about 10 g cm−2."
Thanks for the paper. Note that 10 g/cm2 is about the minimum shielding that can be expected. Realistic shielding from good design will be 20-30 g/cm2
Post by: deruch on 01/31/2018 05:43 pm
https://twitter.com/Marmelleade/status/958350998208172035Quote from: Armelle HubaultAlmost there! @ESA_TGO is now below the 3h orbit mark, and still aerobreaking. In blue our orbit this afternoon, in red when we stop, in green the final circularised orbit. Just a month to go, instruments and team getting ready for science!
Impressive progress! Was it supposed to be February or March that areobraking completes?
Areo-aerobraking. :D
Post by: eeergo on 01/31/2018 10:05 pm
https://twitter.com/Marmelleade/status/958350998208172035Quote from: Armelle HubaultAlmost there! @ESA_TGO is now below the 3h orbit mark, and still aerobreaking. In blue our orbit this afternoon, in red when we stop, in green the final circularised orbit. Just a month to go, instruments and team getting ready for science!
Impressive progress! Was it supposed to be February or March that areobraking completes?
March, as noted upthread, but I think they mean by the end of February aerobraking will be complete.
Post by: bolun on 02/16/2018 01:06 pm
https://twitter.com/Marmelleade/status/958350998208172035Quote from: Armelle HubaultAlmost there! @ESA_TGO is now below the 3h orbit mark, and still aerobreaking. In blue our orbit this afternoon, in red when we stop, in green the final circularised orbit. Just a month to go, instruments and team getting ready for science!
The related article: http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2018/02/01/aerobraking-down-down/
Post by: eeergo on 02/20/2018 03:54 pm
Post by: jebbo on 02/21/2018 09:18 am
Quote
Slowed by skimming through the very top of the upper atmosphere, @ESA_TGO has lowered itself into a #PlanetHugging orbit and is about ready to begin sniffing the #RedPlanet for methane #ExoMars http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Surfing_complete …https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/966252157451186177 (https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/966252157451186177)
Quote
YES! Aerobraking is complete! Some orbit adjustments still to make in coming weeks, but then… #SCIENCE!! Full story:https://twitter.com/ESA_TGO/status/966252434128539648 (https://twitter.com/ESA_TGO/status/966252434128539648)
Post by: Star One on 02/21/2018 07:32 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfvs9mvRzqA
Post by: Star One on 03/08/2018 07:31 pm
Quote
Nearly a year-and-a-half after arriving at the red planet, Europe’s ExoMars orbiter is finally approaching a planned perch around 250 miles over the rust-colored world after repeatedly dipping into the Martian atmosphere to lower its orbit.
The end of a year-long “aerobraking” campaign moves the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter closer to starting regular science observations, a transition expected in April, when the mission will begin measuring how much methane is in the Martian atmosphere, an indicator of potential ongoing biological or geological activity.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/07/europes-exomars-orbiter-nears-start-of-methane-sniffing-science-mission/
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/16/2018 04:38 pm
Quote
Published on 16 Mar 2018
Два года назад с космодрома Байконур ракетой «Протон» был запущен космический аппарат российско-европейской программы «ЭкзоМарс-2016». Сегодня марсианский аппарат TGO выходит на рабочую орбиту вокруг Красной планеты. Идёт проверка научной аппаратуры.
Quote
Published on 16 Mar 2018
Two years ago, the spacecraft of the Russian-European program ExoMars-2016 was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome with the Proton rocket. Today, the Martian apparatus TGO enters the working orbit around the Red Planet. There is a check of scientific equipment.
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/26/2018 02:14 pm
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/ExoMars_returns_first_images_from_new_orbit
Post by: Star One on 04/28/2018 02:06 pm
Quote
“If we find traces of methane that are mixed with more complex organic molecules, it will be a strong sign that methane on Mars has a biological source and that it is being produced – or was once produced – by living organisms,” said Mark McCaughrean, senior adviser for science and exploration at the European Space Agency.
“However, if we find it is mixed with gases such as sulphur dioxide, that will suggest its source is geological, not biological. In addition, methane made biologically tends to contain lighter isotopes of the element carbon than methane that is made geologically.”
Quote
“We will look at sunlight as it passes through the Martian atmosphere and study how it is absorbed by methane molecules there,” said Håkan Svedhem, the orbiter’s project scientist. “We should be able to detect the presence of the gas to an accuracy of one molecule in every 10 billion molecules.”
If the methane is found to be biological in origin, two scenarios will have to be considered: either long-extinct microbes, which disappeared millions of years ago, have left the methane to seep slowly to the surface – or some very resistant methane-producing organisms still survive underground. “Life could still be clinging on under the Martian surface,” said Svedhem.
However, if the gas is found to be geological in origin, the discovery could still have important implications. On Earth, methane is produced – geologically – by a process known as “serpentinisation” which occurs when olivine, a mineral present on Mars, reacts with water.
“If we do find that methane is produced by geochemical processes on Mars, that will at least indicate that there must be liquid water beneath the planet’s surface – and given that water is crucial to life as we know it, that would be good news for those of us hoping to find living organisms on Mars one day,” said McCaughrean.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/28/proof-life-mars-months-away-gas-orbiter
Post by: bolun on 09/17/2018 02:04 pm
This image shows the south-facing rim of a pit crater at 68°S in the Sisyphi Planum region of Mars. It is a colour composite made from images acquired on 2 September 2018 by the Colour and Stereo Surface Imaging System, CaSSIS, onboard the joint ESA-Roscosmos ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter, when the southern hemisphere of Mars was in late spring.
Most striking are the bright residual carbon dioxide ice deposits on south-facing slopes of the crater. In colder months carbon dioxide and some water vapour freezes on the surface. Then, as the Sun gets higher in the sky again, the ice sublimates away, revealing the underlying surface.
This particular crater is known to have active gullies – small, incised networks of narrow channels at the rim of the crater that are associated with debris flows. Ice-rich landslide-like flows of material down-slope can be seen in this image – perhaps related to the ‘defrosting’ of the ice as the seasons change.
Seasonal changes of ices and frost on Mars is one aspect of the ExoMars orbiter’s mission being discussed this week at the European Planetary Science Congress, a major European annual meeting on planetary science, this year hosted by the Technische Universität Berlin Germany.
The image measures 20 x 8 km and the resolution is 4.5 m/pixel. North is 45° on the upper left. The image was taken at 07:22 AM local solar time and assembled from the RED, PAN and BLU filters.
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2018/09/Frosty_crater_on_Mars
Image credit: ESA/Roscosmos/CaSSIS, CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
Post by: AlexA on 09/24/2018 03:44 pm
Quote
ExoMars highlights radiation risk for Mars astronauts, and watches as dust storm subsides
19 September 2018
Astronauts on a mission to Mars would be exposed to at least 60% of the total radiation dose limit recommended for their career during the journey itself to and from the Red Planet, according to data from the ESA-Roscosmos ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter being presented at the European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC, in Berlin, Germany, this week.
The orbiter’s camera team are also presenting new images of Mars during the meeting. They will also highlight the challenges faced from the recent dust storm that engulfed the entire planet, preventing high-quality imaging of the surface.
(http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2018/09/dust_obscures_surface_of_mars/17692506-2-eng-GB/Dust_obscures_surface_of_Mars.jpg)
(http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2018/09/dust_devil_tracks_on_mars/17692469-1-eng-GB/Dust_devil_tracks_on_Mars.jpg)
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 12/14/2018 02:14 am
Martian methane—spotted in 2004—has mysteriously vanished (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/martian-methane-spotted-2004-has-mysteriously-vanished) (sciencemag.org)
Quote
Mars’s methane has gone missing. Scientists first detected traces of the gas—a critical indicator of life on Earth—in the planet’s atmosphere decades ago. But today, researchers reported that a European satellite hasn’t spotted a single trace of methane.
Post by: bolun on 04/12/2019 02:19 pm
Overview of the three new results presented today by the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter teams. While results from the imaging system CaSSIS have been presented previously, today’s release covers the first analysis of the Mars atmosphere and subsurface.
Related article: First results from the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/First_results_from_the_ExoMars_Trace_Gas_Orbiter)
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2019/04/First_results_from_ExoMars_Trace_Gas_Orbiter
Image credit: ESA; spacecraft: ESA/ATG medialab
Post by: jacqmans on 05/22/2019 12:23 pm
Post by: Tywin on 09/24/2019 05:48 pm
https://twitter.com/ESA_TGO/status/1134105441057873922
And beautiful picture of the North poles dunes...
https://twitter.com/ESA_TGO/status/1176526964154408961
Post by: eeergo on 01/29/2020 02:27 pm
Post by: jacqmans on 06/15/2020 04:39 pm
15/06/2020
ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter has detected glowing green oxygen in Mars’ atmosphere – the first time that this emission has been seen around a planet other than Earth.
On Earth, glowing oxygen is produced during polar auroras when energetic electrons from interplanetary space hit the upper atmosphere. This oxygen-driven emission of light gives polar auroras their beautiful and characteristic green hue.
The aurora, however, is just one way in which planetary atmospheres light up. The atmospheres of planets including Earth and Mars glow constantly during both day and night as sunlight interacts with atoms and molecules within the atmosphere. Day and night glow are caused by slightly different mechanisms: night glow occurs as broken-apart molecules recombine, whereas day glow arises when the Sun’s light directly excites atoms and molecules such as nitrogen and oxygen.
http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/ExoMars_spots_unique_green_glow_at_the_Red_Planet
Post by: jacqmans on 07/28/2020 12:33 pm
27/07/2020
ESA’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter has spotted new gas signatures at Mars. These unlock new secrets about the martian atmosphere, and will enable a more accurate determination of whether there is methane, a gas associated with biological or geological activity, at the planet.
The Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) has been studying the Red Planet from orbit for over two years. The mission aims to understand the mixture of gases that make up the martian atmosphere, with a special focus on the mystery surrounding the presence of methane there.
Meanwhile, the spacecraft has now spotted never-before-seen signatures of ozone (O3) and carbon dioxide (CO2), based on a full martian year of observations by its sensitive Atmospheric Chemistry Suite (ACS). The findings are reported in two new papers published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, one led by Kevin Olsen of the University of Oxford, UK and another led by Alexander Trokhimovskiy of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Russia.
“These features are both puzzling and surprising,” says Kevin.
“They lie over the exact wavelength range where we expected to see the strongest signs of methane. Before this discovery, the CO2 feature was completely unknown, and this is the first time ozone on Mars has been identified in this part of the infrared wavelength range.”
The martian atmosphere is dominated by CO2, which scientists observe to gauge temperatures, track seasons, explore air circulation, and more. Ozone – which forms a layer in the upper atmosphere on both Mars and Earth – helps to keep atmospheric chemistry stable. Both CO2 and ozone have been seen at Mars by spacecraft such as ESA’s Mars Express, but the exquisite sensitivity of the ACS instrument on TGO was able to reveal new details about how these gases interact with light.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/ExoMars_finds_new_gas_signatures_in_the_martian_atmosphere
Post by: Svetoslav on 08/01/2020 01:26 pm
It took them quite a long time, but now I am hopeful there will be more frequent releases in the future.
https://archives.esac.esa.int/psa/#!Table%20View/ExoMars%202016=mission
Post by: jacqmans on 02/05/2021 12:42 pm
04/02/2021
The Colour and Stereo Surface Imaging System (CaSSIS) onboard the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission returned this image of an area in Melas Chasma, part of the vast Valles Marineris canyon system on Mars. Valles Marineris stretches for more than 4000 km across the planet’s surface, and plunges more than 7 km deep in places.
The section seen here is about 5 x 6 km in size. It is a colour infrared image (combining the NIR, PAN and BLU filters of CaSSIS), and emphasizes the spectral diversity of landforms and sediments on the surface. It shows details of a blocky deposit on the floor of Melas Chasma that is consistent with an eroded and exposed landslide deposit. Windblown ripples are abundant and interspersed between the blocks.
The CRISM spectrometer on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter revealed a variety of minerals and phases that correlate with the light-toned blocks seen here (for example: nontronite, jarosite, aluminium-rich clays, hydrated silica, and/or an acid-leached clay). The tan-coloured ripples likely contain ferric iron oxides that gives rise to this distinctive colour. There is also evidence of the past presence of water in this region. The bright-white layered materials imply the presence of a hydrated calcium sulphate (possibly gypsum), which is thought to have formed through the ponding and subsequent evaporation of water that may have once occupied portions of the Chasma floor.
The image was taken on 19 October 2020
Post by: eeergo on 02/11/2021 08:14 am
TGO (through its Russian science team) discovers HCl (hydrogen chloride) for the first time in Mars' atmosphere, and links it to increased dust activity periods - potentially also explaining part of the perchlorates found on the surface. This discovery also pairs well with new observations of water loss mechanisms by the unprecedented sensitivity of NOMAD.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/ExoMars_discovers_new_gas_and_traces_water_loss_on_Mars
Post by: jacqmans on 07/20/2021 09:08 am
20/07/2021
The ESA-Roscosmos Trace Gas Orbiter has set new upper limits on how much methane, ethane, ethylene and phosphine is in the martian atmosphere – four so-called ‘biomarker’ gases that are potential signs of life.
Searching for biomarkers on Mars is a primary goal of the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter. A key biomarker of interest is methane, as much of the methane found on Earth is produced by living things or geological activity – and so the same may be true for Mars.
The ‘methane mystery’ on Mars has been ongoing for many years, with contradictory findings from missions including ESA’s Mars Express and NASA’s Curiosity rover capturing sporadic spikes and bursts of the gas in Mars’ atmosphere, fluctuations both in orbit and at the planet's surface, signs of the gas varying with the seasons, or not observing any methane at all.
Previous estimates from Mars and ground-based missions range from 0.2 up to 30 parts per billion by volume (ppbv), indicating up to 30 molecules of methane per billion molecules. For reference, methane is present in Earth’s atmosphere at nearly 2000 ppbv.
However, the first results from the Trace Gas Orbiter, reported in April 2019, spotted no methane, instead calculating that, if present, the gas must have a maximum concentration of just 0.05 ppbv.
“We have now used the Trace Gas Orbiter to refine the upper limit for methane at Mars even further, this time gathering data for over 1.4 martian years – 2.7 Earth years,” says Franck Montmessin of LATMOS, France, Co-Principal Investigator of the Trace Gas Orbiter’s Atmospheric Chemistry Suite (ACS) and lead author of one of a trio of new papers on martian biomarkers.
“We found no sign of the gas at all, suggesting that the amount of methane at Mars is likely even lower than previous estimates suggest.”
As the orbiter’s instruments are highly sensitive, if methane is present it must be at an abundance of less than 0.05 ppbv – and more likely less than 0.02 ppbv, say Franck and colleagues. The scientists also hunted for signs of methane around Curiosity’s home, Gale crater, and found nothing, despite the rover reporting the presence of methane there.
“Curiosity measures right at Mars’ surface while the orbiter takes measurements a few kilometres above – so the difference between these two findings could be explained by any methane being trapped to the lower atmosphere or the immediate vicinity of the rover,” adds Franck.
The apparent lack of martian methane reported by Franck and colleagues is supported by a paper using data from the orbiter’s NOMAD (Nadir Occultation MArs Discovery) instrument, again spanning a full martian year and searching for methane and two other biomarkers.
“We also found no sign of methane on Mars, and set an upper limit of 0.06 ppbv, which agrees with TGO’s initial findings using ACS,” says the paper’s lead author Elise Wright Knutsen, previously at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, USA, and now at LATMOS, France. “As well as searching for global methane, we also looked for localised plumes at over 2000 locations on the planet and didn’t detect anything – so if methane is released in this way, it must be sporadic.”
Alongside methane, Elise and colleagues looked for two other potential biomarker gases: ethane and ethylene. These molecules are expected to occur after methane is broken down by sunlight, and so are exciting both in their own right and in the context of our hunt for methane. Ethane and ethylene molecules also have short lifetimes, meaning that if they are found in a planetary atmosphere they must have been recently released or created via an ongoing process. This makes them excellent tracers of possible biological or geological activity.
“These are ExoMars’ first results hunting for these two gases,” says Elise. “We didn’t detect either, and so set upper limits for ethane and ethylene at 0.1 and 0.7 ppbv, respectively – low, but higher than our limits for methane.”
The orbiter has also been hunting for phosphine – a gas that caused a splash and huge controversy last year when it was allegedly detected at Venus. Most phosphine on Earth is biologically produced, making it an exciting biomarker in the atmospheres of terrestrial planets.
“We didn’t find any signs of phosphine at Mars,” says Kevin Olsen of the University of Oxford, UK, and lead author of the phosphine study. “Our upper limits are similar for those of ethane and ethylene – between 0.1 and 0.6 ppbv.”
The search for life on Mars, or lingering signatures of it, is a central goal of the ExoMars programme, and the hunt for biomarkers in particular is a primary goal of the Trace Gas Orbiter. The forthcoming ExoMars rover Rosalind Franklin, due for launch in 2022, will complement TGO’s hunt for biomarkers by digging down into the martian surface; underground samples may be more likely to retain biomarkers, as material is shielded from the harsh radiation environment of space.
“Whether biomarkers are detected or not, these findings are important for our understanding of which processes occur, and which do not, in the martian atmosphere – essential information when considering where to focus our continued investigation of Mars,” adds Håkan Svedhem, ESA Project Scientist for the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter.
“Many key questions remain – for instance, why does Curiosity see methane at Gale Crater, while we find none in orbit? Could this methane have come from elsewhere, or only be found in particular locations across the planet – or could an unexpected process be destroying any methane present before we can detect it?
It will be exciting to continue working collaboratively with missions like the Curiosity and Rosalind Franklin rovers, both of which have totally different vantage points to an orbiter, to really pin down what is happening in this mysterious planetary environment.”
Notes for editors
This article is based on three papers:
’A stringent upper limit of 20 pptv for methane on Mars and constraints on its dispersion outside Gale crater’ by F. Montmessin et al. is published in Astronomy & Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140389
‘Comprehensive investigation of Mars methane and organics with ExoMars/NOMAD’ by E. Knutsen et al. is published in Icarus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114266
‘Upper limits for phosphine (PH3) in the atmosphere of Mars’ by K. Olsen et al. is published in Astronomy & Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140868.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/ExoMars_orbiter_continues_hunt_for_key_signs_of_life_on_Mars
Post by: jacqmans on 08/25/2021 09:46 am
25/08/2021
A 5 km-long landslide dominates this scene, captured by the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter on 13 April 2021. The landslide has occurred at the rim of a 35 km wide crater in the Aeolis region of Mars (151.88°E/27.38°S).
Landslides are geomorphological processes occurring under specific environmental conditions. On Mars as on Earth, they come in various shapes and sizes, and Earth analogues are used to understand similar processes seen on planetary bodies.
For this particular landslide the failure area, from where the material collapsed, is slightly out of frame, although the transport and deposit zones show great details such as longitudinal striations and flow ridges. The impact craters on the lobe indicates that this is not a recent event, but it remains a challenge to accurately date its formation.
TGO arrived at Mars in 2016 and began its full science mission in 2018. The spacecraft is not only returning spectacular images, but also providing the best ever inventory of the planet’s atmospheric gases, and mapping the planet’s surface for water-rich locations. It will also provide data relay services for the second ExoMars mission comprising the Rosalind Franklin rover and Kazachok platform, when it arrives on Mars in 2023.
Post by: jacqmans on 09/10/2021 10:27 am
10/09/2021
This image of the young volcanic region of Elysium Planitia on Mars [10.3°N, 159.5°E] was taken on 14 April 2021 by the CaSSIS camera on the ESA-Roscosmos ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO).
The two blue parallel trenches in this image, called Cerberus Fossae, were thought to have formed by tectonic processes. They run for almost one thousand km over the volcanic region. In this image, CaSSIS is looking straight down into one of these 2 km-wide fissures.
The floor here is a few hundred metres deep and is filled with coarse-grained sand, likely basaltic in composition, which appears blue in the CaSSIS false-colour composite image. The flat volcanic plains nearby are punctured by small impact craters, which expose possibly the same basaltic materials that we see within Cerberus Fossae.
TGO arrived at Mars in 2016 and began its full science mission in 2018. The spacecraft is not only returning spectacular images, but also providing the best ever inventory of the planet’s atmospheric gases, and mapping the planet’s surface for water-rich locations. It will also provide data relay services for the second ExoMars mission comprising the Rosalind Franklin rover and Kazachok platform, when it arrives on Mars in 2023.
Post by: Rondaz on 10/19/2021 02:55 pm
10/19/2021 15:33
5 years ago, the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) module, designed to study the atmosphere of Mars of the Russian-European interplanetary station of the ExoMars 2016 mission, entered orbit around Mars. This mission launched the largest project aimed at a comprehensive study of the fourth planet from the Sun by remote and contact methods, including the search for traces of the existence of life.
Mission ExoMars 2016 is a unique joint international project of the State Corporation Roscosmos and the European Space Agency. The spacecraft consisted of the TGO orbiter and the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM), named Schiaparelli in honor of the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. The Schiaparelli demonstration module failed to make a soft landing on Mars. At the same time, the TGO orbiter has been successfully operating in orbit around Mars all these years, transmitting important scientific data obtained by Russian and European scientific equipment installed on board, and also relaying data from the Curiosity, Perseverance rovers and the InSight lander.
The TGO module is designed to study the biological and geological origins of significant trace gases in the Martian atmosphere and the distribution of water ice in the Martian soil. The orbital module receives data on seasonal changes in the composition and temperature of the atmosphere, which are necessary to create a detailed model of it, and performs highly detailed surveys of relief elements. The TGO device searches for potential signs of life on Mars by analyzing biomarker gases in the Martian atmosphere (methane, ethane, ethylene and phosphine). The exobiological mission is one of the current paths to a better understanding of the Red Planet.
There are four scientific instruments on board the TGO, two of which represent the Russian contribution to the project and were created at the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In particular, the FREND device (Fine Resolution Epithermal Neutron Detector) allows you to map the distribution of hydrogen on the surface and at a depth of up to 1 meter, and the ACS device (Atmospheric Chemistry Suite - a set of scientific instruments for studying the chemical composition of the atmosphere), consisting of three infrared spectrometers, designed to study the composition, structure and aerosols of the atmosphere.
The SOC-Science Operation Center, which is located at the European Astronomical Center (ESAC, Madrid) together with the Russian Ground Science Complex of the project (NNK-EM), which is located at the IKI RAS, as well as Russian and European scientific laboratories the complex of scientific equipment is controlled and the information received is processed.
To communicate with the TGO, obtain measurement results and transmit control commands on board, the European network of long-range space communications antennas is used with the Control Center at the European Space Operations Center (ESOC, Darmstadt). At the same time, the reception of the bulk of scientific information is provided by the Russian complex for receiving scientific information, created by the cooperation of the IKI RAS and enterprises of the State Corporation Roscosmos on the basis of two 64-meter antennas of the Special Design Bureau of the Moscow Power Engineering Institute (part of the State Corporation Roscosmos) in Kalyazin and Bear Lakes.
Currently, the TGO orbiter is carrying out a scientific research program and transmitting scientific data obtained using two Russian (ACS spectrometric complex and FREND neutron detector) and two European scientific instruments installed on it (NOMAD spectrometer and CaSSIS high-resolution color stereo camera). The Russian complex for receiving scientific information (RKPNI) and the ground scientific complex NNK-EM for the ExoMars 2016 mission are operating normally.
The TGO orbiter will also be used as a data transponder for the ExoMars 2022 mission when the Russian Kazachok landing platform and the European rover Rosalind Franklin installed on it arrive on Mars in 2023. At present, the TGO orbiter, in addition to carrying out the scientific program, functions as a repeater for exchanging data with the Curiosity, Perseverance rovers and the InSight lander.
Moreover, more than half of the scientific information is received by the means of the Russian complex for receiving scientific information, located in Bear Lakes and Kalyazin. It should be noted that the complex was created and used in the ExoMars project in record time. For the first time in the past 30 years, a high-tech domestic ground infrastructure has been created and is being successfully used in Russia, which makes it possible to ensure the reception of scientific information from spacecraft in deep space at the highest level.
Today, the second phase of the project is being prepared for launch - the ExoMars 2022 mission. The key tasks of the upcoming mission will be to explore the surface and subsurface layer of Mars in the immediate vicinity of the landing site, conduct geological research and search for traces of life on the Red Planet.
The TGO apparatus will also be used in the second phase of the project. The orbital module will be used to relay data from the ExoMars 2022 mission after it arrives on Mars. The launch of the mission is scheduled within the "astronomical window" in September-October 2022.
In any space project, there are two segments: onboard, i.e. the spacecraft itself, and the ground-based one, which provides control of the space experiment and the receipt of information, including scientific information from the spacecraft. And control of a spacecraft, which is located at a distance of hundreds of millions of kilometers, and obtaining information from it is a complex technical task that is not within the power of all space powers. In 2016, after a long break in domestic studies of the planets of the solar system (their heyday was in the 1970s - 1980s), RKPNI, the developer of the IKI RAS, began to work with spacecraft in deep space.
Since the start of nominal scientific operations in the framework of the ExoMars 2016 mission in 2018, the domestic RKPNI complex has provided more than half of all scientific information. Having proved its high efficiency and reliability, RKPNI was also involved in receiving information from the European Mars-Express spacecraft, while the MEI OKB specialists implemented a unique technology that ensured the simultaneous reception of information from two spacecraft in orbit around Mars (TGO and Mars Express).
Therefore, the next step of Russian scientists and engineers is of great interest to Russian and foreign specialists - the creation of a Russian complex on the basis of the RKPNI, which will provide not only the reception of scientific information from spacecraft in deep space, but will also solve much more ambitious tasks - their control. The new complex was named the Russian Complex for Receiving Scientific Information and Reserve Control (RKPNiRU), and is currently being created to ensure the transmission of control commands to spacecraft using an antenna in Medvezhye Ozyory.
The readiness of the RKPNIIRU should be ensured by the time the second phase of the ExoMars project (ExoMars 2022 mission), scheduled for 2022, begins. However, even now, after the completion of test runs, RKPNIIRU in test mode controls the TGO spacecraft, which is planned to be used as a data relay for the ExoMars 2022 mission, when the Russian landing platform Kazachok and the European rover Rosalind Franklin installed on it arrive at Mars in 2023 year.
https://www.roscosmos.ru/33038/
Post by: Rondaz on 10/19/2021 03:12 pm
Mission # ExoMars2016 launched the largest project aimed at a comprehensive study of the Red Planet by remote sensing and contact methods, incl. search for traces of the existence of life:
https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1450441405114032131
Post by: Rondaz on 10/20/2021 11:16 am
https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1450781527101554688
Post by: Rondaz on 10/20/2021 12:11 pm
10/20/2021 14:01
Tuesday, October 19, 2021, marks 5 years since the Martian interplanetary station Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) of the Russian-European mission ExoMars 2016 entered orbit around Mars. There are four scientific instruments on board the TGO: two Russian and two European. If we summarize all the results that were obtained during their work, then we can say that with the arrival of TGO in the study of Mars, the paradigm was broken.
This primarily concerns the Martian climate and weather. It is possible that even in the relatively recent past, there was more water on Mars than hitherto assumed. However, the question of life on the Red Planet is still being resolved, rather, in a negative direction, although here there is still room for some mysteries.
The scientific complex of the TGO apparatus includes two spectrometric complexes: the Russian ACS and the Belgian NOMAD. Their main task is to search for small gaseous constituents of the Martian atmosphere, that is, substances whose share does not exceed 1%, as well as to study aerosol particles.
The Russian ACS complex includes three spectrometers operating in different parts of the infrared spectrum. They are distinguished by record spectral resolution and good sensitivity - the ACS complex is capable of registering gas components, the concentration of which does not exceed several tens of particles per trillion per unit volume.
The composition of the Martian atmosphere seems simple. 95% is carbon dioxide CO2, then nitrogen (about 3% percent), argon (less than 2%) and the so-called minor components (total share less than 1%). These include water vapor, oxygen, ozone and other substances. They are of particular interest, since it is hoped that among them biomarkers can also be found - gases that may indicate the presence of life.
Although the question of life on Mars remains on the agenda, in recent months the attention of researchers has turned to the problems of the chemistry of the Martian atmosphere. As it turned out, the models available today do not explain the picture of what is happening, which is actually observed on Mars. We are collecting the details of this picture now.
Methane, ethane, ethylene, phosphine ...
What unites all the named compounds? The answer is that they are all currently considered possible signs of biological activity. In March, May and June 2021, three articles were published in scientific journals on the search for these gases on Mars. The first place, of course, is still methane.
Searching for methane is one of the main tasks of the ACS spectrometer. Already in 2018, almost immediately after the start of regular work, it became clear that the methane in the atmosphere of Mars is orders of magnitude less than it was assumed on the basis of ground-based observations - no more than 50 particles per trillion per unit volume (or 0.05 particles per billion, parts per billon by volume, ppbv). This result was released to the public in 2019 after extensive reviews.
In a new article published in June 2021 in Astronomy & Astrophysics, these estimates have been tightened even more. Researchers Frank Montmessin (LATMOS laboratory, France) and Oleg Korablev (IKI RAS, Russia) and their co-authors processed ACS data for one and a half Martian years (approximately 2.7 Earth years) - 34th and 35th in Martian reckoning (MY34 and MY35). As before (in the article by Korablev et al., Published in the journal Nature in 2019), no traces of methane were found in the TGO spectra. Moreover, the upper limit was improved, i.e., it was found that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere does not exceed 0.02 ppbv with a probability of 99%.
These measurements again contradict the fact that the American Mars rover Curiosity registers methane in concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher - up to 19 ppbv, and on average no less than 0.2-0.5 ppbv. However, if Curiosity operates close to the surface, then ACS observes the atmosphere from several kilometers above it. Thus, it is possible to "reconcile" the results of the two devices, if we assume that the methane in the lower atmosphere is immediately destroyed or falls into some kind of "trap" and does not rise to the upper layers. However, there are no suggestions yet about what process could destroy methane so quickly or "isolate" it from the rest of the atmosphere.
Roughly the same can be said about phosphine, which has recently come to be considered a potential biomarker. ACS did not detect phosphine absorption bands. Its content in the atmosphere does not exceed 0.1–0.6 ppbv. Let us clarify that we are not talking about real observable "traces" of matter, but about what sensitivity is needed for the instruments of the following devices in order to capture these gases - if, of course, they are.
An article with this result was published in Astronomy & Astrophysics in May 2021; its first authors were Kevin Olsen (Kevin Olsen, Oxford University, Great Britain) and Alexander Trokhimovsky (IKI RAS).
Hydrochloric acid from Martian salt
If the presence of methane on Mars before the start of TGO's work was almost certain and expected only inevitable confirmation, then there was no such conviction that there is hydrogen chloride (HCl, in fact, hydrochloric acid) in the planet's atmosphere. It was assumed to exist, but it was not possible to detect it experimentally before ACS. Again, it was a low concentration - as the first estimates showed, its concentration should not exceed 0.2–0.3 ppbv.
In February of this year, Science Advances published an article (first by Oleg Korablev) on the discovery of hydrogen chloride (HCl) in the atmosphere of Mars. The discovery was made by the Russian spectrometer ACS. According to measurements, hydrogen chloride appeared in the atmosphere during a global dust storm that occurs on Mars every few years, and gradually disappeared after its end. Observations refer to the 34th Martian year (MY34). Its content, according to these data, ranged from 1–4 ppbv. And, unlike phosphine, this is the real content: in the spectra that ACS receives, the absorption bands of HCl have been detected with high reliability.
A reasonable assumption arose that the formation of HCl is associated precisely with the presence of a large number of aerosols lifted by winds from the surface. However, the ACS team of researchers decided to clarify this hypothesis: in a March article in Astronomy & Astrophysics, an article by Kevin Olsen, Alexander Trokhimovsky and their colleagues was published on the appearance of hydrogen chloride in the next 35th Martian year (MY35) - although there was no global dust storm that year.
The absolute values of the HCl content for both years are very close - 0.1–6 ppbv. Thus, the authors suggest that not a dust storm, but rather a "dust season" (the time when the amount of dust in the atmosphere is maximum, in this case summer in the southern hemisphere) is the cause of the formation of hydrogen chloride.
At the same time, the mechanism of the appearance and rapid disappearance of this gas is not yet completely clear. One can speculate, and both articles consider the hypothesis that HCl, or at least part of it, enters the atmosphere from the interior of the planet, as a result of volcanic processes. The ACS has detected this gas several times during the quiet summer season in the northern hemisphere, when there is almost no dust in the atmosphere.
Another article by Alexander Trokhimovsky and his colleagues, published in the same journal in July, is devoted to the study of the isotopic composition of chlorine in atmospheric hydrogen chloride: H35Cl and H37Cl.
Most of the Martian gases are significantly enriched in heavy isotopes due to the long-term loss of its atmosphere by Mars. However, it was precisely for hydrogen chloride that it was determined that its isotopic ratio almost corresponds to the terrestrial one. Most likely, this means that the observed hydrogen chloride, and in particular chlorine in its composition, does not participate in long-term exchange processes between the surface and the atmosphere - in other words, chlorine is more or less "locked" in the lower layers of the Mars atmosphere.
The water flies away and remains, but heavy
Unlike chlorine, the isotopic composition of hydrogen (H) in the Martian atmosphere differs from that on Earth. Mars has five times more deuterium (D) - "heavy" hydrogen, the nucleus of which, in addition to one proton, contains one more neutron - than on Earth.
Knowing this fact helps to estimate the amount of water that Mars has lost during its history. The main "supplier" of hydrogen to the atmosphere is water molecules H2O. Since, unlike Earth, water on Mars is rather actively leaving through the atmosphere into space, then if you know the rate of losses, you can restore the chain "back" and understand how much water was in the beginning.
Roughly speaking, we need to understand how quickly a water molecule, once in the upper atmosphere, decays into ions, which either leave, in one way or another, the atmosphere, or bind in some other substance and remain on the planet.
It can be assumed that initially, at the time of planet formation, the Martian D / H ratio was similar to that of the Earth. But "light" hydrogen evaporates faster than heavy hydrogen, so over hundreds of millions of years this ratio has changed to the level that we observe today.
It was assumed that this process is determined by two mechanisms. The first is condensation, that is, the transition of atmospheric water from a gaseous state to an ice state, the formation of "snow" clouds. The second is photolysis, that is, the decay of molecules into a hydrogen ion H and an OH radical under the action of solar ultraviolet radiation. The problem that researchers are working on right now is how these mechanisms work, what is the result of their "action", if measured in terms of the amount of "lost" water and or changes in the D / H index.
In June 2021, the journal Nature Astronomy published an article presenting the results of measurements of the concentration of water (H20) and heavy water (HDO, where one of the hydrogen atoms is replaced by a deuterium atom) on Mars, depending on the height above the surface.
Its authors Juan Alday (University of Oxford, Great Britain), Alexander Trokhimovsky (IKI RAS) and their colleagues, including those from the LATMOS laboratory, compared the data obtained by ACS with the expected rate of photolysis, and came to the conclusion that for the formation of hydrogen ions in the atmosphere, it is the photolysis mechanism that is most important. In addition, it turned out that in its course hydrogen atoms are formed in larger quantities than deuterium atoms (it was previously believed that for the "separation" of hydrogen and deuterium in the atmosphere, condensation is more important).
The second ACS result, described in an article by Denis Belyaev (IKI RAS) and his colleagues (published in May 2021 in Geophysical Research Letters), is based on observations of the concentration of water vapor at altitudes of 100–120 km above the surface. Previously, this layer (mesosphere and upper mesosphere) was not studied in the study of water distribution.
According to the new results, the maximum concentration of water vapor molecules H2O was 10-50 parts per million per unit volume (ppmv) during the global dust storm of 34 Martian years, as well as during the two summer solstices in the southern hemisphere - MY34 and MY35. (In other periods, the maximum values at these heights were significantly lower and did not reach 2 ppmv).
As mentioned above, there was no global dust storm in the 35th Martian year. But water molecules nevertheless reached such heights where they could already be easily destroyed by solar ultraviolet light. Thus, it is very likely that it is the change of seasons - the onset of the southern summer, and not just dust storms - that increases the rate of water loss.
This factor was previously underestimated: it was believed that “bursts” of losses occur precisely during global dust storms, while at other times the water “evaporates” at a more or less even rate. But the Martian atmosphere turns out to be much more dynamic. In addition to global dust storms, regional ones also play an important role. The article, published in August in the journal Nature Astronomy, collected data from three artificial satellites of Mars, including the ACS / TGO experiment, on the amount of dust, temperature, concentration of ice, water vapor and hydrogen in the atmosphere of Mars during a regional dust storm ( southern hemisphere summer MY34, January - February 2019 on Earth). As their analysis showed, the rate of hydrogen loss at this time can increase by 5–10 times. Since regional dust storms occur almost every year, their contribution to the evolution of the Martian atmosphere can be very significant.
Martian years are counted from the terrestrial 11 April 1955 - Ls 0, the moment of the vernal equinox in the Northern Hemisphere. At the same time, since the orbit of Mars is quite elongated, the seasons differ in length - the northern spring and summer are shorter than the southern ones.
You can convert Earth to Martian time using, for example, The Mars Climate Database Projects web server. By the way, now (October 2021) in the southern hemisphere of Mars there is a deep winter of the 36th Martian year.
***
The ExoMars project is a joint project of the Roscosmos State Corporation and the European Space Agency. It is implemented in two stages. The first mission, launched in 2016, includes two spacecraft: the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) for observing the atmosphere and surface of the planet and the Schiaparelli lander for testing landing technologies.
The scientific tasks of the TGO apparatus are registration of small components of the Martian atmosphere, including methane, mapping the abundance of water in the upper layer of the soil with a high spatial resolution of the order of tens of kilometers, and stereo imagery of the surface. The apparatus is equipped with two instruments created in Russia: the ACS spectrometric complex (ACS - Atmospheric Chemistry Suit) and the FREND high-resolution neutron telescope (FREND, Fine-Resolution Epithermal Neutron Detector). Russia also provides a Proton booster rocket with a Briz-M upper stage for launching.
The second phase of the project (launch in 2022) provides for the delivery of the Russian landing platform Kazachok to the surface of Mars with the European rover Rosalind Franklin on board. Russia provides a Proton-M booster rocket with a Briz-M upper stage for launch.
Within the framework of both stages, a ground-based scientific complex of the ExoMars project, combined with ESA, is being created in Russia for receiving, archiving and processing scientific information.
Source: IKI RAN
https://www.roscosmos.ru/33053/
Post by: jpo234 on 12/15/2021 09:34 pm
Quote
“FREND revealed an area with an unusually large amount of hydrogen in the colossal Valles Marineris canyon system: assuming the hydrogen we see is bound into water molecules, as much as 40% of the near-surface material in this region appears to be water.”
The water-rich area is about the size of the Netherlands and overlaps with the deep valleys of Candor Chaos, part of the canyon system considered promising in our hunt for water on Mars.
Post by: Dalhousie on 12/15/2021 09:52 pm
ExoMars discovers hidden water in Mars’ Grand Canyon (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/ExoMars_discovers_hidden_water_in_Mars_Grand_Canyon)Quote“FREND revealed an area with an unusually large amount of hydrogen in the colossal Valles Marineris canyon system: assuming the hydrogen we see is bound into water molecules, as much as 40% of the near-surface material in this region appears to be water.”
The water-rich area is about the size of the Netherlands and overlaps with the deep valleys of Candor Chaos, part of the canyon system considered promising in our hunt for water on Mars.
At such shallow, equatorial depths I suggest water in minerals is more likely than ice. There are a number of candidate sulphate minerals for this:
Epsomite (MgSO4.7H2O) = 51% water
Hexahydrite (Mg(SO4) · 6H2O) = 47% water
Meridianite (MgSO4.11H2O) = 62% water
Post by: jpo234 on 12/15/2021 10:43 pm
ExoMars discovers hidden water in Mars’ Grand Canyon (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/ExoMars_discovers_hidden_water_in_Mars_Grand_Canyon)Quote“FREND revealed an area with an unusually large amount of hydrogen in the colossal Valles Marineris canyon system: assuming the hydrogen we see is bound into water molecules, as much as 40% of the near-surface material in this region appears to be water.”
The water-rich area is about the size of the Netherlands and overlaps with the deep valleys of Candor Chaos, part of the canyon system considered promising in our hunt for water on Mars.
At such shallow, equatorial depths I suggest water in minerals is more likely than ice. There are a number of candidate sulphate minerals for this:
Epsomite (MgSO4.7H2O) = 51% water
Hexahydrite (Mg(SO4) · 6H2O) = 47% water
Meridianite (MgSO4.11H2O) = 62% water
They mentioned that possibility, but see ice as more likely:
Quote
This water could be in the form of ice, or water that is chemically bound to other minerals in the soil. However, other observations tell us that minerals seen in this part of Mars typically contain only a few percent water, much less than is evidenced by these new observations. “Overall, we think this water more likely exists in the form of ice,” says Alexey.
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/16/2021 01:13 am
Post by: Dalhousie on 12/16/2021 02:28 am
ExoMars discovers hidden water in Mars’ Grand Canyon (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/ExoMars/ExoMars_discovers_hidden_water_in_Mars_Grand_Canyon)Quote“FREND revealed an area with an unusually large amount of hydrogen in the colossal Valles Marineris canyon system: assuming the hydrogen we see is bound into water molecules, as much as 40% of the near-surface material in this region appears to be water.”
The water-rich area is about the size of the Netherlands and overlaps with the deep valleys of Candor Chaos, part of the canyon system considered promising in our hunt for water on Mars.
At such shallow, equatorial depths I suggest water in minerals is more likely than ice. There are a number of candidate sulphate minerals for this:
Epsomite (MgSO4.7H2O) = 51% water
Hexahydrite (Mg(SO4) · 6H2O) = 47% water
Meridianite (MgSO4.11H2O) = 62% water
They mentioned that possibility, but see ice as more likely:QuoteThis water could be in the form of ice, or water that is chemically bound to other minerals in the soil. However, other observations tell us that minerals seen in this part of Mars typically contain only a few percent water, much less than is evidenced by these new observations. “Overall, we think this water more likely exists in the form of ice,” says Alexey.
Again, I would expect ice to occur at greater than 1 m depth, therefore below the detection depth of FREND. of the other hand, be there are other factors, like shading, that allow shallower ice.
Post by: deadman1204 on 12/16/2021 08:01 pm
Post by: Dalhousie on 12/16/2021 08:18 pm
trouble is, it could be a mix of both even. We literally cannot tell.
Indeed it is difficult. Modelling of thermal profiles can predict the depth we would expect to find ice, and spectroscopy can identify both surface ice and water-bearing minerals, if not covered by dust. Then there are recent craters exposing ice, if we are lucky.
Post by: centaurinasa on 12/24/2021 11:48 am
Post by: hoku on 05/23/2023 01:42 pm
Happy decoding!
Post by: bolun on 06/01/2023 05:38 pm
Quote
The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) has revealed how oddly ‘light’ carbon monoxide forms in Mars’ atmosphere. The finding paints a better picture of how carbon-containing matter formed on the Red Planet, and helps clarify a puzzling discovery made by NASA’s Curiosity rover last year.
The TGO observations show that a process at play in Mars’ atmosphere – where carbon dioxide is split apart by sunlight – forms carbon monoxide containing less ‘heavy’ carbon than we would expect.
The finding is consistent with the idea that a combination of sunlight and complex chemistry, rather than life, gave rise to the carbon-based compounds (‘organic matter’) we see on the martian surface.
Image credit: ESA