ExoMars Options

[Stuart H]

Full inline quote deleted - ADMIN

But why we dont build quickly new Beagle 2 spacecraft and send it to Mars? Are the blueprints lost/deleted ? Do we save money and time to not makeing new blueprints for the spacecraft ? I admire Chinas desision to send twin to orbit. Why we cant do it ?

A very good question.
Colin Pillinger and I proposed two upgraded Beagle 2 landers each with a Sojourner sized Rover (called BeagleNET) for less than 600kg total, to be launched on a Soyuz, and way less than ExoMars current cost ~ 1000 million Euros.
But UK Gov't would not back it with money - so no project.

It has now been left to the Italians, who seem to have plenty of money !

Sadder and wiser.

PS. All the original Beagle 2 drawings/documents have been stored. I believe we could have launched three missions each with two BeagleNETs by now (2007, 2009 and 2011) to different places on Mars for less than the Current ExoMars cost.

[Paolo]

The 2016 ExoMars lander Announcement of Opportunity is out.
Be sure to check the Proposal Information Package, where you can find lots of info on the mission and spacecraft

[Bill]

I don't know if this subject deserve his own thread or is at the right place.

It seems that Meridiani planum is the primary landing site for the ExoMars Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM) 2016 mission. Opportunity is going to have a visit !
From a scenic point of view, i hope they will choose one of the other options.
One thing i don't understand are the latitude criteria (25° to 30° North latitude band) which are not respected by the Meridiani site.

http://iue.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=48730
http://www.planetarygis.org/forum/scenario...6-landing-site/
I have noticed : "We would greatly appreciate any comments, suggestions, advice and ideas about the report."

http://www.planetarygis.org/site_media/sta...016_Mission.pdf

[Stu]

Sorry, can someone check this, cos my computer must be playing up. I could have sworn I just read that this is going to be simply an EDL test, with a few "scientific instruments" Blu-Tac'd onto the lander, to do some "useful science" in the 8 SOLS it will be working...

http://iue.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=47852

[stevesliva]

Seems they've left out solar panels.

[nprev]

...seems like a dramatic de-scope.

[helvick]

I don't want to diminish the technical effort that will be required to make this succeed but I cannot for the life of me understand why there is no real payload.

I never thought I'd find myself saying this about a Mars surface mission but this seems like a colossal waste of time and money.

[nprev]

I can sort of understand the logic behind this. It depends on what the prime objective of the mission is: engineering demonstration or science. Looks like they're framing the project in terms of trade-offs between each of those, and of course (generally speaking) the less science you do the less engineering risk you assume.

I understand it. Doesn't mean I like it.

[djellison]

Sorry, can someone check this, cos my computer must be playing up. I could have sworn I just read that this is going to be simply an EDL test, with a few "scientific instruments" Blu-Tac'd onto the lander, to do some "useful science" in the 8 SOLS it will be working...

We knew this a couple of years ago. I was flabbergasted then, I remain so now.

Moreover, it's an EDL test for....nothing. There Mars scientific community has said via the decedal...after MSL and MAVEN... MSR or nothing. So what the hell is this a test for.

It's shameful.

[nprev]

Almost seems as if the Beagle 2 experience somehow made ESA so risk-averse about Mars EDL that this is all that they were willing to commit to. If so, that's really unfortunate; this is a wasted opportunity.

[Greg Hullender]

To quote Homer Simpson, "Trying is the first step to failure."

--Greg

[ngunn]

Wasn't it something like: the EXOMARS rover grew too hefty for it's proposed landing system, but certain nations due to build the landing system would likely have withdrawn all their EXOMARS funding (and sunk the project) if the EDL was not built and demonstrated anyway?

[vjkane]

removed

[djellison]

The Decadal Survey speaks for only U.S. priorities.

ESA and NASA have made it abundantly clear that neither can afford to explore Mars without very tight collaboration in the future.

Europe apparently wants the ability to land its own payloads on Mars in the future.

Great! What payloads? Where are the proposals for these payloads? Where's the queue of scientists specifying the instrument volume, mass and power requirements and landing-site constraints that can thus drive this 'testbed'?

If I understand the scale of the lander, it would make a nice platform for a future network science mission or perhaps a short-lived ice cap lander.

There is no money to do such a thing in the future. Pathfinder, for example, was a testbed for a future network of landers. It was already approved and in-work when the network was cancelled. As a testbed - it had a purpose.

The REAL waste is spending all this money as a testbed to nowhere....without spending the minuscule amount of money required to make it last more than a week.

[vjkane]

removed