ExoMars - Schiaparelli landing |
ExoMars - Schiaparelli landing |
Aug 12 2016, 07:07 PM
Post
#16
|
||
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10226 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
Starting a new topic here - hopefully that's OK! Clearly there will be a lot of action around this in the next weeks and months with descent images and HiRISE views of the hardware.
I thought I had posted this map earlier but apparently not. This shows the various landing ellipses in this area. The original plan was for an ellipse oriented NW-SE, but it changed with the different launch date and is now nearly E-W. Note that the ellipse shown in the recent ESA release is the envelope of all ellipses over a given launch period, but the actual landing ellipse for the given launch date is smaller. Opportunity's final landing ellipse is shown for comparison. http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57445-exom...6-landing-site/ http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57446-exom...6-landing-site/ Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PDF: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
||
Oct 19 2016, 04:06 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 122 Joined: 19-June 07 Member No.: 2455 |
I have a question about this lander mission for the experts. I was surprised to hear the lander has no solar panels, will operate briefly until batteries run out, and has no surface cameras at all, that this mission was primarily just to practice landing techniques in preparation for a future rover mission. It sure seems that these techniques have been fully developed by the US and we are having stunning successes at landing in difficult conditions and I would assume that there would be no reservations at all about sharing the technology with ESA. While I understand that ESA wants to show they can do it on their own, the costs to send a lander are astronomical and not reinventing the wheel seems to be a very logical step. Why is ESA not piggybacking off our experience more? Was this simply a situation where they had such limited payload weights available and this was some last minute addition to the ExoMars mission or did they truly need this step? I just can't fathom going to all that trouble to set something down like this and not include solar panels and a camera.
|
|
|
Oct 19 2016, 05:35 PM
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: 15-August 07 From: Shrewsbury, Shropshire Member No.: 3233 |
I have a question about this lander mission for the experts. I was surprised to hear the lander has no solar panels, will operate briefly until batteries run out, and has no surface cameras at all, that this mission was primarily just to practice landing techniques in preparation for a future rover mission. It sure seems that these techniques have been fully developed by the US and we are having stunning successes at landing in difficult conditions and I would assume that there would be no reservations at all about sharing the technology with ESA. While I understand that ESA wants to show they can do it on their own, the costs to send a lander are astronomical and not reinventing the wheel seems to be a very logical step. Why is ESA not piggybacking off our experience more? Was this simply a situation where they had such limited payload weights available and this was some last minute addition to the ExoMars mission or did they truly need this step? I just can't fathom going to all that trouble to set something down like this and not include solar panels and a camera. Entry descent and landing technology is classified because of its relationship with ICBM technology. This is why we were lucky to see oppy's microscopic images of her heat shield. However, you will notice that jpl have never described what the images revealed. I was surprised that communications protocols between opportunity's central computer and it's instruments were also classified. I have read that this is why opportunity's European made instruments have an analogue interface and not a digital interface to the main computer. |
|
|
Oct 20 2016, 03:13 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
I have read that this is why opportunity's European made instruments have an analogue interface and not a digital interface to the main computer. This is not only OT but pretty nonsensical. As an example, the foreign instruments on MSL (RAD, part of Chemcam, and REMS) are not analog interfaces. The digital interfaces may not be publicly documented, and ITAR is often invoked, but they are certainly not secrets within the project. IMHO the ESA EDL demonstrator is as much about politics and nationalism/regionalism as it is about technical issues, and I have been working on space missions with international participation since the mid 80's. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd September 2024 - 02:46 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |