Can ESA claim damages against the United States for withdrawing from the programme and thus causing the costs of mission redesign and search for a replacement launch vehicle?
Russian export control procedures made it impossible for Europe’s ExoMars mission in 2016 to employ a Russian nuclear heater that would have permitted the ExoMars lander to operate for two years on the martian surface, the ExoMars prime contractor said Oct. 3. Instead of functioning as a ground-based weather monitor for a full martian year, the European-built lander will be limited to providing data as it parachutes to the Mars surface and then for around four martian days —eight Earth days — until its batteries deplete.
Vincenzo Giorgio, ExoMars project manager at Thales Alenia Space, said Russian authorities had signaled their willingness to provide the RTG for the 2016 mission pending final approval from Russia’s technology export authorities. Giorgio said the European team already had redesigned the 2016 mission to protect the orbiter from the RTG-produced heat during flight. But Russian authorities subsequently informed the ExoMars team that final authorization would not arrive before next February — too late to meet the ExoMars 2016 schedule. Giorgio agreed with Saggese that removing the RTG does help the 2016 mission keep to its schedule, but said the cost in terms of lost scientific return is high.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/19/2012 06:32 amQuote from: QuantumG on 10/19/2012 01:09 amI think ExoMars proved exactly the opposite. There's been no consequences.No consequences that are immediately obvious the general public...yet. If there's been consequences, name them. If you can't, there hasn't been any.
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/19/2012 01:09 amI think ExoMars proved exactly the opposite. There's been no consequences.No consequences that are immediately obvious the general public...yet.
I think ExoMars proved exactly the opposite. There's been no consequences.
The post below comes from a less appropriate thread.Quote from: QuantumG on 10/19/2012 06:48 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/19/2012 06:32 amQuote from: QuantumG on 10/19/2012 01:09 amI think ExoMars proved exactly the opposite. There's been no consequences.No consequences that are immediately obvious the general public...yet. If there's been consequences, name them. If you can't, there hasn't been any.There have been a number of consequences of NASA largely pulling out of ExoMars. They consist of changes to the design of the ExoMars mission and hardware, resulting in funding issues that now hold a real chance of cancellation of ExoMars coming November in the ESA ministerial conference. There are also consequences for the science being performed and even for the level of availability of the science results from the mission.With NASA pulling out and no longer providing the launcher and other assets, the ExoMars programme could only survive with either a significant increase in ESA-provided budget (not very likely to happen with all the financial trouble going on in Europe), OR, get another partner on-board. That other partner became Russia, providing Proton launchers, requiring re-design of ExoMars hardware to fit inside the smaller payload-envelope of the Proton and re-design to work with the other flight hardware now provided by Russia.So yes, there was significant consequences of NASA pulling out. The most severe could play out coming November. Despite Russia stepping in to replace NASA the ExoMars programme will still require a significant increase in spending from ESA member states (in increase in the order of 200 million Euros). It remains to be seen whether the ESA ministers are willing to spend that additional amount of money. They might, because they now have obligations to Russia. OR, they might choose not to provide the additional funds and the mission will be cancelled. If and when that scenario plays out it will be ironic to see ESA walk the sime line NASA did.