Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ ExoMars Program _ ExoMars

Posted by: Sunspot Aug 25 2005, 11:22 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4180840.stm

Europe has fixed on a concept for its next mission to land on the Red Planet.

It aims to send a single robot rover to the Martian surface along with another, stationary, science package.

Posted by: Marcel Aug 25 2005, 01:21 PM

They want to land that rover so badly......(which in understand). But:

American datatransportation, american payload (in return for that) and american EDL gear (probably to make sure that it's going to work).

Seems they don't have so much faith in designing their own vehicle laugh.gif There's nothing wrong with working together, but it's not giving me a feeling of an organisation that is very self confident......

Posted by: djellison Aug 25 2005, 01:39 PM

And why the american data realy - is MEX expected to give up in the near future?

America wont supply an EDl system - ITAR makes sure of that.

Doug

Posted by: Marcel Aug 25 2005, 01:52 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 25 2005, 01:39 PM)
And why the american data realy - is MEX expected to give up in the near future?

America wont supply an EDl system - ITAR makes sure of that.

Doug
*

They probably don't want to rely just on MEX, because IF it fails before 2013 (which is a long time from now), they have no orbiting european hardware left, and DTE is not a option offcourse by that time, considering the produced datavolume of such a craft.....

You're right about ITAR.....but they WANT the american EDL system, as is written in the article.....

Anyway.....the more rovers up there, the better. But it would be better to allocate the money for, let's say, 2, 3 or even 4 sojouner type of vehicles (with moles and streaming video on its mast, maybe even brought there by the same (1 or 2) launcher. Equip them with tiny little sweet RTG's and there you go.

But that's my idea.....

Posted by: RNeuhaus Aug 25 2005, 02:43 PM

What is MEX? I haven't heard of it. Will be glad to be acquainted of it?

Rodolfo smile.gif

Posted by: Marcel Aug 25 2005, 02:52 PM

QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Aug 25 2005, 02:43 PM)
What is MEX? I haven't heard of it. Will be glad to be acquainted of it?

Rodolfo  smile.gif
*

Mars Express. The ESA orbiter.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/

Posted by: RNeuhaus Aug 25 2005, 02:54 PM

Ooppss, it is a smart word!

Thanks Marcel. biggrin.gif

Posted by: djellison Aug 25 2005, 02:56 PM

One thing space isnt short of it's Acronyms smile.gif

MEX, MGS, MODY, MRO, MER, MSL...it's madness

Doug

Posted by: Marcel Aug 25 2005, 02:58 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 25 2005, 02:56 PM)
One thing space isnt short of it's Acronyms smile.gif

MEX, MGS, MODY, MRO, MER, MSL...it's madness

Doug
*

And you seem to be the specialist....
Euh, what's MODY ?

Posted by: RNeuhaus Aug 25 2005, 02:58 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 25 2005, 09:56 AM)
One thing space isnt short of it's Acronyms smile.gif

MEX, MGS, MODY, MRO, MER, MSL...it's madness

Doug
*

Yes, indeed inclusive for any kitchen cheff won't be able to figure them out! laugh.gif

Rodolfo

Posted by: Marcel Aug 25 2005, 02:59 PM

QUOTE (Marcel @ Aug 25 2005, 02:58 PM)
And you seem to be the specialist....
Euh, what's MODY ?
*

Ah, now i remember....

Posted by: Cugel Aug 25 2005, 03:13 PM

From the article:

QUOTE
a mass of 120kg for the rover and 8-14kg for the science payload


That's a lot of balsa wood! But I wonder how much drilling you can get out of that?
A MER rover is 185 kg. and is totally geology dedicated. Is it possible to build a life detection system in 8-14 kg. ????

Posted by: RNeuhaus Aug 25 2005, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (Cugel @ Aug 25 2005, 10:13 AM)
From the article:
That's a lot of balsa wood! But I wonder how much drilling you can get out of that?
A MER rover is 185 kg. and is totally geology dedicated. Is it possible to build a life detection system in 8-14 kg. ????
*

Besides, the rover has only 4 wheels instead of 6 wheels. I am affraid that it will need purified sands on all parts... blink.gif

Rodolfo

Posted by: djellison Aug 25 2005, 03:25 PM

A straight copy of the Beagle 2 science payload wouldnt be a bad move - given time to test and calibrate it all properly.

Doug

Posted by: djellison Aug 25 2005, 04:12 PM

Oh MODY - some call it MO2k1- Mars Odyssey smile.gif

Doug

Posted by: SigurRosFan Aug 25 2005, 07:32 PM

Will SMILE fly to Mars with ESA's ExoMars??

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ayPuf85bLbkJ:www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/28_moaucb.shtml+340+atacama+exomars&hl=de

Posted by: RNeuhaus Aug 25 2005, 08:02 PM

QUOTE
SigurRosFan(Posted Today, 02:32 PM)

The ESA Technology, Mars Organic Analyzer to detect the life in the crust is interesting but if I think that the Mars life was more than 3 thoushands millions years ago (I don't agree with billions and it means millions millions!), then the amino must be very vanished comparing to ones of Atacama Desert.

The desert Atacama was covered by ocean probably about 20-40 millions years ago. So by that land there must be some fossils and amino compositions. The north of Chile and South of Peru have one of the most dry places of the world with almost no precipitation and there have plenty of dunes on lower lands and rocky on upper land, the ladden of Andean mountain chain.

Rodolfo

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Aug 25 2005, 08:28 PM

One reason that NASA decided not to fly a 1-meter soil drill on MSL is that it will, in any case, carry a small drill capable of coring samples from several cm beneath the surface of sedimentary rocks -- and it is actually far likelier that ancient biochemical fossil remains can survive in those places, sealed off completely from Mars' surface oxidants, than that they can survive a meter down in its current soil.

Posted by: SigurRosFan Aug 25 2005, 08:44 PM

Sorry. Wrong link.

MOA will fly definitely(!) to Mars.

I mean SMILE (Specific Molecular Identification of Life Experiment).

"The criteria for ExoMars are tough. Researchers hoping to get a place on the craft have to design a device that will look for biomarkers but not exceed 3 kg in mass or measure more than 16x16x20 cm."

http://www.nature.com/materials/news/news/050630/journal/050620-15.html

Posted by: Rakhir Jan 31 2006, 01:25 PM

Alcatel Alenia Space starts the ExoMars mission design

http://www.alcatel.com/vpr/;jsessionid=111...equestid=451784

This contract, worth about 13 million Euros, calls for one year mission design work up to the preliminary design review including the definition of the main system elements of the mission.

EDIT : Link corrected, thanks to Vikingmars.

Posted by: vikingmars Jan 31 2006, 03:05 PM

smile.gif Here is the missing link :
http://www.alcatel.com/vpr/;jsessionid=111ESWCJK453CCTFR0GU1DYKMWHI23GC?_requestid=451784

QUOTE (Rakhir @ Jan 31 2006, 02:25 PM)
Alcatel Alenia Space starts the ExoMars mission design

http://www.alcatel.com/vpr/?body=http://ww...eKey/31012006uk

This contract, worth about 13 million Euros, calls for one year mission design work up to the preliminary design review including the definition of the main system elements of the mission.
*

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Feb 13 2006, 11:39 PM

Excerpt from the February 13, 2006, issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology:

World News & Analysis
U.S. Moon Focus Provides Opportunities for Europe on Mars, Science
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/13/2006, page 44

Michael A. Taverna
Paris and Toulouse

[...]

"The main objective of the European Space Agency's Aurora exploration program, launched in December, is Mars. ExoMars--a 2011 lander/rover mission intended as a precursor for a Mars Sample Return (MSR) flight--will lead off.

"Funding for ExoMars is already well beyond the requested 593-million-euro budget envelope. ESA has 651 million euros in commitments to date, and is likely to exceed 700 million euros with the likely participation of Canada.

"Although the extra money could be used to add an orbiter to ExoMars, ESA is leaning toward earmarking the funds for MSR, which is already expected to get the lion's share of 73 million euros in Aurora technology funding (AW&ST Jan. 23, p. 15). 'Interest in MSR has definitely gone up a notch,' said Alain Pradier, who heads Aurora's technology office. Noting that NASA recently pushed back its date for MSR to the end of the next decade, while ESA continues to target a first mission in 2016-18, Pradier said ESA might even be willing to take a lead role in MSR--or at least act as the focal point for international collaboration.

"European officials acknowledged ESA is not yet in a position to do this. For one thing, said Richard Bonneville, who heads solar system exploration at French space agency CNES, Italy--the only European space power with an expanding budget--is showing a strong interest in the Moon. But he noted that the European science community has consistently backed the Martian preference. The final road map for ESA's Cosmic Vision science program for 2015-25, issued in October, lists planetary exploration as one of four themes to be pursued, and Mars figures prominently on the roster of exploration goals."

Posted by: Rakhir Mar 16 2006, 01:07 PM

Europe Mars shot looks to upgrade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4812556.stm

The consequences of the US science budget cuttings on Exomars mission.

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Mar 16 2006, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Rakhir @ Mar 16 2006, 01:07 PM) *
Europe Mars shot looks to upgrade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4812556.stm

The consequences of the US science budget cuttings on Exomars mission.

Don't underestimate the "nationalistic" angle, Rakhir.

"[Converting the ExoMars carrier spacecraft into an orbiter, Vago] said, would allow the European mission 'to gain some independence from MRO' and also pave the way for 'a follow-up to the excellent science Mars Express is conducting today.'

"Going down the route of using MRO as a relay means ExoMars would have to compete for time on the orbiter with Nasa's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover, due to launch in 2009."

Posted by: ljk4-1 Apr 25 2006, 02:51 PM

The technology for this "lab on a chip" sounds amazing, but since it seems
pretty clear that any existing life on Mars is probably deep underground,
what can they hope to find with it just from analysing the surface? Waste
products from the creatures that drift upwards? Dead bodies? No, I am
not being facetious.


Life-Marker Chip Planned For ESA Mars Lander

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Life_Marker_Chip_Planned_For_ESA_Mars_Lander.html

Posted by: tty Apr 25 2006, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ Apr 25 2006, 04:51 PM) *
The technology for this "lab on a chip" sounds amazing, but since it seems
pretty clear that any existing life on Mars is probably deep underground,
what can they hope to find with it just from analysing the surface? Waste
products from the creatures that drift upwards? Dead bodies? No, I am
not being facetious.



A great deal. There has been a lot of progress in recent years in identifying bio-marker molecules that indicate the one-time existance of a variety of life forms (cyanobacteria, methanogens, eucaryotes etc) and which are stable enough to last billions of years here on Earth. The main problem is the possibly strongly oxidizing chemistry of Martian topsoil, so it would probably be advisable to crush rocks and analyze the interior.

tty

Posted by: PhilHorzempa May 26 2006, 03:03 AM



Even though the American Mars program has been cut back, it's nice
to know that there will still be one more "M.E.R." going to Mars.
Here is a recent look at the 2011 ExoMars Rover as it drives off of its
airbag-assisted lander.


http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/aurora/Exomarslander_HI.jpg


This image is from ESA.


Another Phil

Posted by: lyford May 26 2006, 04:00 AM

That's a really nice pic - looks like the drill is included? Like the "chrome" finish tongue.gif

I really like the mission overlap as well - MSL should still be kicking by then... Heck, MERs may even last until Phoenix lands!

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?topic=&subtopic=&subm1=GO&keyword=rover

Posted by: jamescanvin May 26 2006, 04:14 AM

QUOTE (PhilHorzempa @ May 26 2006, 01:03 PM) *
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/aurora/Exomarslander_HI.jpg
This image is from ESA.


That's a neat trick getting it to roll to a stop at the top of a nice hill!

Nice looking rover smile.gif


EDIT:
Husband Hill summit in the background of this one if I'm not mistaken.

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=rover&single=y&start=6&size=b

James

Posted by: BruceMoomaw May 26 2006, 04:39 AM

I suspect ESA is not going to be able to come anywhere close to cramming all of their currently planned instrument payload onto that little rover. In particular, I suspect the drill may have to get the boot. By the way, I have found the text description of that drill, assuming that it is indeed the same one that Italy was originally supposed to provide for Dan Goldin's hallucinatory 2003 Mars Sample Return mission. (The previously included drawings, unfortunately, have been removed from the website.)

http://ars.asi.it/bandi/marte2003/drill-ao-pip.html

Posted by: remcook May 26 2006, 08:48 AM

QUOTE (lyford @ May 26 2006, 05:00 AM) *
Like the "chrome" finish tongue.gif


Cool, they're sending a toaster! wink.gif

Posted by: AndyG May 26 2006, 09:31 AM

QUOTE (jamescanvin @ May 26 2006, 05:14 AM) *
That's a neat trick getting it to roll to a stop at the top of a nice hill!

That does rather suggest a 5-metre landing ellipse. laugh.gif

But, apart from its shiney-zingyiness (and surely that's so 1990's?) isn't it a wee bit familiar? Is this the ESA taking up the CCCP's torch that formerly produced the TU-144 and Buran? rolleyes.gif

Andy G

Posted by: karolp May 26 2006, 10:17 AM

At the first sight what looks much different to me are 3 "eyes" on top of that mast instead of 2 as in MERs. Is this 1. Red 2. Green 3. Blue or something else? Also, I cannot really see any navcams...

Posted by: Bob Shaw May 26 2006, 11:43 AM

Here's one I prepared earlier!

Bob Shaw

 

Posted by: ustrax May 26 2006, 01:40 PM

QUOTE (jamescanvin @ May 26 2006, 05:14 AM) *
Nice looking rover smile.gif

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=rover&single=y&start=6&size=b


It surely is! biggrin.gif

And look at all those tiny flags on it!
Dressed for success!... smile.gif

Posted by: Cugel May 27 2006, 02:40 PM

And armed to kill!

I wonder if the motors on that segmented neck will be used only for deployment or if that camera platform will retain its flexibility throughout the mission (with how many degrees of freedom?). It could make some pretty awesome self-portraits!
There seems to be no IDD arm on the thing, other than that monstrous drilling device. So I guess all sample analysis will be done inside the machine?

Posted by: jamescanvin May 28 2006, 01:27 AM

QUOTE (Cugel @ May 28 2006, 12:40 AM) *
There seems to be no IDD arm on the thing, other than that monstrous drilling device. So I guess all sample analysis will be done inside the machine?


Yes there is, tucked under the front there.

Posted by: Bob Shaw May 28 2006, 01:36 AM

I hope they have some way to pop the drill assembly off the rover if it gets stuck - it'd be a bit of a pity if the drill simply screwed the thing solidly to one spot!

Hmmm... ...Pepsi, anyone?

Bob Shaw

Posted by: PhilCo126 May 30 2006, 11:40 AM

Well, the ESA Marsrover ExoMars 2011 project is featured on the cover of ESA bulletin N° 126 - May 2006. This is a FREE tri-monthly magazine by ESA publications on high quality glossy paper.
Great ExoMars article by the Microgravity & Exploration program dept of ESTEC - Noordwijk - Netherlands.

Posted by: djellison May 30 2006, 12:22 PM

QUOTE (karolp @ May 26 2006, 11:17 AM) *
At the first sight what looks much different to me are 3 "eyes" on top of that mast instead of 2 as in MERs. Is this 1. Red 2. Green 3. Blue or something else?


Well - actually, MER has 5 eyes on the mast. Two Pancams, Two Hazcams, and Mini-Tes...perhaps this is two variable focal length cameras, and then something TES like in the middle...OR...two wide angle navcams, and a zoom-able high res pancam in mono.

Posted by: jaredGalen May 30 2006, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (PhilCo126 @ May 30 2006, 11:40 AM) *
Well, the ESA Marsrover ExoMars 2011 project is featured on the cover of ESA bulletin N° 126 - May 2006. This is a FREE tri-monthly magazine by ESA publications on high quality glossy paper.
Great ExoMars article by the Microgravity & Exploration program dept of ESTEC - Noordwijk - Netherlands.


It's great, I saw this post while at work. then I arrived home to find the ESA rover looking up at me from the cover of the bulletin. It really is great, being free and all is even nicer! smile.gif

There's a nice article on SOHO too.

Posted by: Stephen May 31 2006, 01:50 AM

I notice the ExoMars rover as drawn in those pics has got quite large cleats on its wheels. Would larger ones have been useful on the MERs as well (for getting more easily out of sandtraps, say)?

======
Stephen

QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ May 26 2006, 04:39 AM) *
(The previously included drawings, unfortunately, have been removed from the website.)

http://ars.asi.it/bandi/marte2003/drill-ao-pip.html

Yes and no. The pics on that page do appear to be missing. However, there is a zip file here (about 850K):

http://ars.asi.it/bandi/marte2003/drill.ZIP

which contains an MS word document of the same article with the pics embedded.

======
Stephen

EDIT NOTE: These were actually two separate posts!

Posted by: RNeuhaus May 31 2006, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (Stephen @ May 30 2006, 08:50 PM) *
I notice the ExoMars rover as drawn in those pics has got quite large cleats on its wheels. Would larger ones have been useful on the MERs as well (for getting more easily out of sandtraps, say)?

Nope.

The best "tires" or wheels for sandy terrain are ones with very wide and flat with octogonal strips. The cleats does not help anything but to worse the traction capability due to a lower contact surface area. The cleats are only good for firm lands.

Rodolfo

Posted by: ljk4-1 Jun 13 2006, 12:53 PM

British Scientists Unveil Latest Craft To Search For Life On Mars

London, England (AFP) Jun 12, 2006

British scientists on Monday took the wraps off a prototype craft to search for signs of life on Mars, hailing it the smartest piece of equipment ever designed for exploration of the red planet.

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/British_Scientists_Unveil_Latest_Craft_To_Search_For_Life_On_Mars.html

Posted by: ustrax Jun 13 2006, 01:07 PM

QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ Jun 13 2006, 01:53 PM) *
British Scientists Unveil Latest Craft To Search For Life On Mars

London, England (AFP) Jun 12, 2006

British scientists on Monday took the wraps off a prototype craft to search for signs of life on Mars, hailing it the smartest piece of equipment ever designed for exploration of the red planet.

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/British_Scientists_Unveil_Latest_Craft_To_Search_For_Life_On_Mars.html


Bridget?!? smile.gif

Posted by: Analyst Jun 13 2006, 01:49 PM

I am from Europe, but this article is cheap talk, and some bullshit.

QUOTE
"The Beagle was really advanced in comparison to most of the stuff NASA is doing. This will be more advanced. This will be the most advanced thing to land on Mars, ..."

[...]

Spirit and Opportunity have been slowly scouting Mars since landing in early 2004.

"They have done maybe 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) in total," Healy said. (The actual total, according to NASA, is 14.86 kilometers, or 9.23 miles.) "The rover here (Bridget) will have done that within four to six months at the most. It's got to go to 10 sites that are up to one kilometer (0.6 miles) apart.

"It won't be commanded on the ground. It will get there quicker and spend more time searching using its sophisticated technology... It will bring back more information."


Well, Beagle MAY have been advanced UNTIL EDL. I remember the talk in 2003: NASA will do driving and pictures, we will do real science. And I wondered how they put all these instruments into Beagle. They cut other corners.

Have they ever heard something about MSL? What is special if in 2011 you are better than two rovers launched in 2003? I still don't see them putting all the instruments, including the drill, into a rover the size of MER.

If their budget is 700m euros and 150m euros are for the rover INCLUDING some kind of autonav (quite cheap compared to MER), then 550m euros are for the orbiter, the EDL system and the launcher? A Soyuz is too small for a lander AND an orbiter: Two launches or an Ariane 5?

I believe it if it's on the pad.

Analyst

Posted by: ljk4-1 Jun 13 2006, 01:59 PM

QUOTE (ustrax @ Jun 13 2006, 09:07 AM) *
Bridget?!? smile.gif


British scientists are apparently very lonely. wink.gif

To quote from the article:

"They have done maybe 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) in total," Healy said. (The actual total, according to NASA, is 14.86 kilometers, or 9.23 miles.) "The rover here (Bridget) will have done that within four to six months at the most. It's got to go to 10 sites that are up to one kilometer (0.6 miles) apart."

To echo Analyst, of course a rover one decade from the time of the MERs is
likely going to do better. But I am not impressed that it will do things faster.
It's the quality of the data I care about. If you want faster and better (but
not cheaper), send humans.

Posted by: djellison Jun 13 2006, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (Analyst @ Jun 13 2006, 02:49 PM) *
I believe it if it's on the pad.


MPL and Beagle 2 made it to the pad....it's the hard stop at the other end that's the real challenge smile.gif


Doug

Posted by: Analyst Jun 13 2006, 02:31 PM

Good point.

Posted by: Redstone Jun 13 2006, 02:33 PM

Haven't seen this posted yet, so...

You can download a 3 minute .avi video of Briget in action.

http://a1862.g.akamai.net/7/1862/14448/v1/esa.download.akamai.com/13452/wmv/Exomarscompolast.avi

Now if only JPL would let us see the MSL video. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: ustrax Jun 13 2006, 02:48 PM

Bridget: (origin: Gaelic.) Brighid, "fiery dart." The name of the muse who was believed to preside over poetry in pagan times, in Ireland. Brighid, in the Gaelic, also signifies a hostage, a pledge of security.

It will be well fitted when she's speeding through the martian landscape... smile.gif

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 13 2006, 03:58 PM

QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ Jun 13 2006, 08:59 AM) *
"They have done maybe 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) in total," Healy said. (The actual total, according to NASA, is 14.86 kilometers, or 9.23 miles.) "The rover here (Bridget) will have done that within four to six months at the most. It's got to go to 10 sites that are up to one kilometer (0.6 miles) apart."

To echo Analyst, of course a rover one decade from the time of the MERs is
likely going to do better. But I am not impressed that it will do things faster.
It's the quality of the data I care about. If you want faster and better (but
not cheaper), send humans.

These improvement will depend upon to a much improved microprocessor. The vital brain to direct as fast, as smart and as efficiently all Mars' operations.

That part, MER is lacking that much power since it depends very much from Earth remote commanding.

The know most powerful microprocessor that is going to send along with MSL: RAD 750, alike to IBM/Motorola PowerPC 750 dated on the year 1998 which is still very much lagged to our present technology. (Third Generation and now the latest ones is of 5 Generation with 8.125 times faster).

Maybe, one of the most noticeable bottleneck of the space exploration advancement is the radiation-hardened process done by the BAE Systems, isn't?

Rodolfo

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 13 2006, 04:35 PM

Space programs are fundamentally competative, which is probably a good thing. International competition has always been a bigger source of passion for space exploration than the politically-correct theory of international cooperation.

That said, the Amercians and Russians generally played by the rule that you get to brag only after you accomplish something. I'm not impressed by Chinese dictators saying they will build Moon bases. I'm not impressed by computer graphics images of spaceships that haven't been built yet. And I question whether a Mars lander is more advanced than anything NASA ever did, after it hits the planet like a bug against a windshield on the freeway.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 13 2006, 05:54 PM

QUOTE (Redstone @ Jun 13 2006, 03:33 PM) *
Haven't seen this posted yet, so...

You can download a 3 minute .avi video of Briget in action.

http://a1862.g.akamai.net/7/1862/14448/v1/esa.download.akamai.com/13452/wmv/Exomarscompolast.avi

Now if only JPL would let us see the MSL video. rolleyes.gif


No. Briget will end up as a crazy cat lady, hiding Martian cats away in the safety of her (fur-free) crater...

Sabrina would have been a better name, especially if powered by an RTG, but those fules know NOTHING about atomms.

Bob Shaw (Form IIIe)

Posted by: helvick Jun 13 2006, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 13 2006, 04:58 PM) *
The know most powerful microprocessor that is going to send along with MSL: RAD 750, alike to IBM/Motorola PowerPC 750 dated on the year 1998 which is still very much lagged to our present technology. (Third Generation and now the latest ones is of 5 Generation with 8.125 times faster).

You are right that the RAD-750 represents the best current hardware that is rated for missions like these but it's worth pointing out that the RAD-750 is closer to 20x slower than current generation hardware (whether x86, Power, ARM, Niagra (SPARC) or Cell). More importantly the MIPs( or FIPS)\watt numbers for some of the current gen hardware beats the RAD-750 by almost 200x. The latest 1Ghz ULV Core Duo has an average power consumpton of 0.75watt. Benchmarking comparisons are hard when the CPU architectures are as different as the Power architecture of the RAD-750 and the x86 Core Duo are but the former is rated at ~240 VAX Mips while the 1 Ghz ULV Core Duo is about equivalent to a 2Ghz P4 which is ~4500 VAX Mips. That's just shy of 20x the processing capability while eating 7.5% of the power.

It's also worth pointing out that the RAD-750 has about 20x the performance per watt of the RAD6000 that the MER's use (22 Mips peak @ 20 Watts) which makes the MER on board compute capability about 4000x worse than the current "state of the art" here on earth. For me that just shows how extremely hard space exploration actually is.

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 13 2006, 09:53 PM

Helvick, Your comments are for Amen! Much improvement. If the MSL or ExoMars would have had it, it would be a good Mars soldier!

I think that the radiation-hardening process is a very long, expensive and complicated process. I don't know about its process but I suspect that this process takes again the same process as the original but with others material. I will try to find more information about this process since I think it is one of that is causing a BIG TECHNOLOGICAL LAGGING for any sophisticated space explorations.

Rodolfo

Posted by: djellison Jun 13 2006, 09:58 PM

Of course, with custom realtime OS's - the processing overheads for your average spacecraft are only a fraction of those for the OS's used by those 'mainstream' processors. I've not actually heard of computing performance being a limiting factor for spacecraft - but I may have missed such reports.

Doug

Posted by: helvick Jun 13 2006, 10:29 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 13 2006, 10:58 PM) *
. I've not actually heard of computing performance being a limiting factor for spacecraft - but I may have missed such reports.

For most spacecraft they aren't but the power consumption of the RAD6000 on the MER's is a significant percentage of the daily power budget. The numbers that I have gleaned from the various web sources are not necessarily reliable but they seem to broadly agree that the "processing" consumes about ~30% of the power budget on average and more than that for compute intensive activities like VISODM. A standard VISODM "step" is around 75cm of drive (15 seconds) followed by 2-3 minutes of computing. I think that the drive motors consume around 30W but even if they consume 100W at full tilt and the analysis only take 2 minutes then a VISODM drive segment consumes 50% more power on computing than it does on actual motion.

Posted by: lyford Jun 14 2006, 12:04 AM

Did someone say http://klabs.org/DEI/Processor/PowerPC/index.htm

And much more....

EDIT _ DOH! The links to the manuals are broken, but the other stuff is still neat.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jun 14 2006, 01:43 AM

I'm an absolute idiot when it comes to computers, but if the RAD-750 doesn't provide all the processing power you want for MSL or ExoMars, can't you put more than one aboard a rover, each RAD-750
controlling different functions on the rover?

Posted by: mcaplinger Jun 14 2006, 02:24 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 13 2006, 02:58 PM) *
I've not actually heard of computing performance being a limiting factor for spacecraft - but I may have missed such reports.

Generally, Doug is right. There's a lot of semi-informed speculation on this thread, less real info. The RAD750's performance is comparatively poor from two factors: first, the process changes that make its internal registers immune from radiation-induced bit flips slow down the clock speed considerably, but more importantly, external components, also rad-hard, are running more slowly, as are the busses. The RAD750 on MRO doesn't even have an L2 cache and it's using a 33-MHz PCI bus.

If you wanted a non-mission-critical computing resource that didn't have to be totally bulletproof against radiation, there are many options, including commercial processors that happen to be latchup-immune and various gate arrays. For our MSL instruments we are using Xilinx FPGAs; clocked at 40 MHz they are many times faster at doing JPEG compression than code running on a fast desktop system would be.

Rover speed is typically limited more by the capabilities of the drivetrain and the overall power budget. It's not like MER would be going 50 KPH with a faster processor. Despite what AI people will try to tell you, we don't know how to write autonomous nav software regardless of how fast our processors are.

And finally, MIPS (aka "Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed") is a bad metric for judging computer performance in this or any other problem domain.

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 14 2006, 02:59 AM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jun 13 2006, 09:24 PM) *
Rover speed is typically limited more by the capabilities of the drivetrain and the overall power budget. It's not like MER would be going 50 KPH with a faster processor. Despite what AI people will try to tell you, we don't know how to write autonomous nav software regardless of how fast our processors are.

And finally, MIPS (aka "Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed") is a bad metric for judging computer performance in this or any other problem domain.

I was thinking that too. The AI is one of the software components which needs a fast CPU, lots of RAM in order to perform the harzard avoidance analyze more sophisticated and perform the required action with a much better performance as the MER does. A much improved AI will need much less from Earth remote direction and hence the rover will have greater autonomy to perform the core activities more productively in Mars.

It is true that the MIPS "Millions Instructions per Second" is an old comparision computing power that actualy is obsolete except it is only good to have an idea about how the younger brother computer is improved against the older brother if the model or serie is about the same.

Well, I seems like that the AI is a new field that must work harder to improve the space exploration by improving the autonomy capabiltity of probe or rover. If the microprocessor RAD750 is limited in its computing capability, so why don't put more microprocessors in parallel. The most powerfull computers work with many processors in parallel.

In few words, I think the AI is still very new and I speculate that in the future, the AI will play with a much greater importance. Imaginate that JPL tell the rover: "Please go there, over that dark spot and tell me what is that up? wink.gif

Rodolfo

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 14 2006, 03:23 AM

The Bell Labs inventor of UNIX, Ken Thompson, was once on an ACM panel discussion and the question was posed, "What is the major contribution of AI to Computer Science". Ken answered, "Fraud!". That was probably true a a few decades ago, when MIT and Stanford AI labs dominated the field. You had grandiose claims and no real results. One famous Stanford profressor, giving a demonstration of an English-language query system, accidently hit the carriage return twice -- the program printed the answer to his question, and then printed the answer to the next question, which he hadn't typed yet.

These days, I would take a look at AI development in the computer-game industry. Games, as frivolous as they may seem, are the driving market force behind a lot of elements of the computer industry. Why does the graphics card in your PC go faster than an SGI workstation? Why do the Intel and AMD processors do vector math? Why was the Cell Processor developed? PC games. That is the commercial application of megaflops.

[attachment=6232:attachment]

Now let's talk radiation hardened computers. Here is a good solid Russian solution!

Posted by: mcaplinger Jun 14 2006, 03:45 AM

QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 13 2006, 07:59 PM) *
If the microprocessor RAD750 is limited in its computing capability, so why don't put more microprocessors in parallel.

Three answers: mass, power, and cost. A single flight RAD750 board uses tens of watts, weighs over a kilo (just for the board, not counting card cage, etc.) and costs, last time I checked, nearly a million dollars. And we don't need more cycles anyway.


QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 13 2006, 08:23 PM) *
These days, I would take a look at AI development in the computer-game industry.

Games have driven graphics development, sure. But I would argue that there's nothing like real AI in any game out there. Real AI of a sort useful for rovers would be able to sense the environment and react/plan accordingly. Games just don't have to do that; they define the environment, there's no need to sense it.

Posted by: helvick Jun 14 2006, 06:48 AM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jun 14 2006, 03:24 AM) *
Generally, Doug is right. There's a lot of semi-informed speculation on this thread, less real info.
...
And finally, MIPS (aka "Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed") is a bad metric for judging computer performance in this or any other problem domain.

Thanks for jumping in Mike - you are dead right on both of the above. I used Mips quite arbitrarily and without enough qualification but the intention was to find some metric that emphasized how extremely different the stuff that has to fly is from what we can put in general purpose PC's.

On the issue of rover speed I was trying to show that there are situations where the current rovers' progress is, to some degree, limited by the electrical power that the onboard computing systems consume during the compute intensive semi autonomous driving modes. I agree that any "improvement" in that would not necessarily lead to a faster rover but it would free up some power for other things.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 14 2006, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 14 2006, 04:23 AM) *
Now let's talk radiation hardened computers. Here is a good solid Russian solution!


Don:

What is it?

Bob Shaw

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 14 2006, 04:45 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jun 13 2006, 10:45 PM) *
Three answers: mass, power, and cost. A single flight RAD750 board uses tens of watts, weighs over a kilo (just for the board, not counting card cage, etc.) and costs, last time I checked, nearly a million dollars. And we don't need more cycles anyway.

Good to hear your comments! smile.gif

About the weigth, its is by far heavier than any normal microprocessor and its peripheral components; its price is prohibitive for any commercial applications. However, a more powerfull microprocessor will save money on the other side. It is that we are going to learn the results quicker and hence the mission won't take as long as does MER, hence saves money to the mission operations.

Hence, I see that AI is a very promisory role for future space missions and NASA must pay greater efforts on that. I have enclosed a interesting reports in which make lots of emphasis about the importance of autonomy for a greater producivity of mission. The productivity depends much by a powerfull microprocessor.

QUOTE
For rovers and robots, we're trying to design autonomous intelligent agents that can survive in hostile environments.


QUOTE
Mars is a lot more complicated than that, but this particular technique is based on trial and error, so it's self-learning. We train the robots with something called a "fitness function," but we're not to clear on how to build to most optimal training regime. We want to mix and match different types of environments to get the robot to learn to be robust, so no matter what situation it finds itself in, it can still navigate.

But spacecraft engineers are notoriously conservative, and they don't like new things. So it's a constant battle to try and convince the agency that what we're doing will work and that it's better than the technique they currently have. That's always an uphill struggle.

So AI is still a novel and with a radiation hardened microprocessor up to date will help to improve the AI.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_Naturally_Inspired_Robot.html

The problem resides of a very long time lagging between the new microprocessors and the radiation-hardened ones. Mike, do you know why it is?

Rodolfo

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 14 2006, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jun 14 2006, 02:34 AM) *
Don:

What is it?

Bob Shaw


It's the program timing unit that controls the course-correction engine in Mars, Venera and Fobos probes.

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 15 2006, 03:37 PM

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Brits_Unveil_Latest_Robot_To_Search_For_Life_On_Mars.html

British scientists on Monday took the wraps off a prototype craft to search for signs of life on Mars, hailing it the smartest piece of equipment ever designed for exploration of the red planet.


Details about Bridged

Then wait beyond than 2011 for knowing the happening news.

Rodolfo

Posted by: helvick Jun 15 2006, 04:49 PM

QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 14 2006, 05:45 PM) *
Hence, I see that AI is a very promisory role for future space missions and NASA must pay greater efforts on that.

I must say that I'm fully in agreement with Mike on the liklihood of "AI" being of any benefit to rovers any time soon. More computing power will help some limited functionality and the power consumption\weight savings that might be made by space rating current computing tech would be worth some effort but the end result will not be AI or anything close.

I've worked on and with such systems in the past and they have always disappointed. Fully autonomous AI is still 20+ years out even here on earth with effectively unlimited power and size constraints.We still do not have even the beginnings of the theoretical foundations of what will be needed to build an AI.

Assisted rather than artificial intelligence is something that has made significant strides but the only places where Artificial Intelligence has made any progress have been in well defined domains (e.g. Chess playing systems like Fritz) but even those are really just variants on assisted intelligence where the only brains belong to the developers or users. "Expert" systems, genetic algorithms, simulated annealling, neural networks, bayesian filters and the rest are useful in extremely well defined problem domains but each one has been over hyped.

Posted by: hendric Jun 16 2006, 05:49 AM

What's your thoughts on the DARPA challenge? AI or not, they did essentially do what the MERs do, except at 30+ miles per hour, usually using multiple high-end machines to manage the sensors and AI. With MRO quality imagery and a Mars GPS system, rovers going 1-5MPH on their own should be reasonable.

Posted by: djellison Jun 16 2006, 06:20 AM

We don't have a Mars GPS system, and we're highly unlikely to have one within a couple of decades - however some of the hazard avoidance and image interp. of the Darpa winners is fantastic and I'm hoping that the US Military doesnt keep it all to itself and some algorythms can make it through to potential planetary rovers in the future.

But - and it's a big but - and likely to be so for a very long time - those DARPA vehicles are using essentially mobile super-computers compared to anything put into space. Maybe it goes around in circles a little bit

No powerfull space-suitable CPU's available....so no high processing requirements ever made
No requirement thus no real shotcoming in the availability of more powerfull processors etc etc.

Doug

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 16 2006, 07:17 AM

It would save a lot of time and planning if a rover was even smart enough to take commands from Earth like "Turn 35 degrees and go 250 meters, avoiding obstacle".

Computer vision is notoriously unrobust. Stereo fusion (calculating a depth map from two camera views) has been around for decades, but it can be fooled by unusual textures or visibility features (something one camera sees but is hidden to the other). You definately want to believe input from cat whiskers or inclinometers more than you believe the vision algorithm, or the rover will end up driving off a cliff.

You're pushing the limits of robust AI algorithms to plan a path around an obstacle and still try to reach the target coordinates. And if anything hairy happens, it should stops and call Earth for help. Recognition and path planning tasks performed routinely by a rodent are well beyond what a super computer can do today.

The issue isn't processor speed, it is the primitive state of the art in AI algorithms. It's an unfortunately feature of academic AI culture to exagerate that state of the art, so be skeptical until you see a rover really doing what is promised on realistic outdoor terrain, not a white floor with colored cubes.

Posted by: djellison Jun 16 2006, 09:01 AM

Don - have you seen the results of the Darpa challenge? It couldn't be any less lab-conditions - it was quite an achievment. Loads of the entries were complete failures - but a few were superb and completed a complex course over terrain both rough and smooth, with plenty of obstacles, totally unassisted.

Doug

Posted by: ljk4-1 Jun 16 2006, 02:09 PM

Jim Bell said that during certain points of the day, especially at sunrise
and sunset, the Mars Rovers would sometimes refuse to move ahead.

Turns out they interpreted their shadows as pits in the ground and
did not want to fall into them. They had to be "told" that shadows
were okay to drive on.

About a decade ago, a robot car designed by the US military being
tested on a regular automobile road kept swerving over to the other
side of the lane for seemingly no reason.

Turned out that a row of trees had their shadows falling across the
road and the robot car interpreted them as obstacles and obeyed its
programming by trying to avoid them.

This does make one admire the abilities of what the brain can do
in such a compact package.

Posted by: mcaplinger Jun 16 2006, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (hendric @ Jun 15 2006, 10:49 PM) *
What's your thoughts on the DARPA challenge? AI or not, they did essentially do what the MERs do, except at 30+ miles per hour...

And on a road.

Posted by: djellison Jun 16 2006, 02:38 PM

To be fair - it was hardly a beautiful tarmac highway....

http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/grandchallengephotos/gcpics100905/dsc_3925.jpg

There are bits of the floor of Gusev crater, and almost all of Meridiani where I would rather drive my car than on that road smile.gif

Doug

Posted by: mcaplinger Jun 16 2006, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 16 2006, 07:38 AM) *
To be fair - it was hardly a beautiful tarmac highway....

Most of the teams preprogrammed the entire route from airphotos/satellite images and could have (or did) dead-reckoned nearly the whole way on GPS without even having vision or laser-scanning systems. And the vision systems were highly optimized to find the road edges.

I looked at this fairly extensively a few months back, and in my opinion the applicability to planetary rovers is pretty low. I won't even discuss the relative power density between gasoline and solar or RTG systems. Between lidar and racks of processors, the GC vehicles were burning through kilowatts of electricity.

Posted by: djellison Jun 16 2006, 03:29 PM

Oh - I quite agree ( and mentioned earlier ) there are few parallels

The simplest way to do this sort of thing is to put a human brain in the loop.

Doug

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 16 2006, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 16 2006, 10:29 AM) *
Oh - I quite agree ( and mentioned earlier ) there are few parallels

The simplest way to do this sort of thing is to put a human brain in the loop.

Doug

Sure, the control remote range of present technology won't be practical beyond of Mars. That is that any kind of robot (rover, aerobot, plane) on any Gallilean and Saturninian moons won't be easy without a well developed AI along with plenty peripheral sensors and powerfull computer system to advance the scientific mission not so longer time than the MER's does in Mars.

At the present technology, to rover in a real time in Moon is feasible, in Mars, only with remote command up to 95% and 5% of hazards avoidance. For Mars and Venus, the robot technology areas needs to work harder in both ways: Improve the AI and peripheral sensors and hence, this demand will develop a new market so that, I think, BAE will justify it as a good business before selecting a more powerfull microprocessor and its peripherals (RAM, EPPROM, ROM, bus, etc.) to be radiation-hardened.

Rodolfo

P.D.Now there are soccer game among mini-robots (very funny).

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 16 2006, 07:26 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jun 16 2006, 08:20 AM) *
Most of the teams preprogrammed the entire route from airphotos/satellite images and could have (or did) dead-reckoned nearly the whole way on GPS without even having vision or laser-scanning systems. And the vision systems were highly optimized to find the road edges.


That's what I was getting at. It is a successful but special-purpose solution. I do think it is feasible to get a rover to avoid obsticles with occasional calls for help. But that takes another special-purpose solution that is pushing the state of the art. The rover is not going to be "smart" in any sense.

News articles about these kinds of things always exagerate, both because the journalists don't understand the science and because the academic culture has evolved to speak very aggressively and compete for precious small grant money. There is a natural tendancy to anthropormorphize, and you see blatent attempts to encourage that with projects like http://robotic.media.mit.edu/projects/sociable_robots.html. They are fun to check out, but what you see is misleading.

What biological brains do is indeed remarkable, and the robots you see in movies are pure science fiction. Nobody really knows how smart a computer could be if it was programmed correctly. Maybe a high-end PC could be as smart as a human, but the breakthrough in software technology has not happened yet.

Posted by: PhilCo126 Jun 22 2006, 11:07 AM

Here's the cover of ESA BUlletin we talked about ( FREE copies available via ESA publications )
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/ESA_Publications/index.html

Posted by: Stephen Jun 23 2006, 12:32 PM

QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 16 2006, 07:26 PM) *
That's what I was getting at. It is a successful but special-purpose solution. I do think it is feasible to get a rover to avoid obsticles with occasional calls for help. But that takes another special-purpose solution that is pushing the state of the art. The rover is not going to be "smart" in any sense.

Actually, the issue here is navigation. Avoiding obstacles is only a very tiny part of that.

In that respect Meridani and Gusev are not really very challenging sites and Spirit and Opportunity not really very representative of the kinds of rovers that will be needed to traverse them. Both sites are largely open plains where for the most part obstacles are few and far between and those which do occur a rover can generally (the sandtraps Opportunity keeps getting itself mired in are an important exception) see coming for dozens of yards if not a mile or two off, and thus can identify them (and work out a way around them) long before it actually encounters and has to deal with them. Even the dune/ripple fields Opportunity is currently traversing are no real obstacle. Not only can it see over their tops, when it comes to an end of a trough instead backtracking and going around to another it generally simply rolls over a ripple to a neighbouring trough. That sort of solution would have been far less viable, if not downright impossible, had it been confronted by (say) the kind of rock-filled obstacle course Sojourner faced at its site.

As for the rovers themselves, the task of navigating Spirit and Opportunity is done almost entirely by minds back on Earth. For example, Opportunity does not decide for itself which sand trough to travel down. Its human babysitters decide for it. In that respect nothing much has really changed since the days of the Soviet lunar rovers of the 1970s and it seems unlikely to change any time soon; and even if it could change it needs to be remembered that a rover is really only a kind of proxy explorer for its human controllers on Earth. The latter will want to decide for themselves where their proxy is going. That inevitably is going to slow rover progress down to the speed the humans can get pics and other information back from the rover to Earth, make a decision, then upload the next batch of instructions. Not to mention limiting it to how far the humans can see.

QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 16 2006, 07:26 PM) *
What biological brains do is indeed remarkable, and the robots you see in movies are pure science fiction. Nobody really knows how smart a computer could be if it was programmed correctly. Maybe a high-end PC could be as smart as a human, but the breakthrough in software technology has not happened yet.

No existing PC, high-end or otherwise, would be able to run such software--because no PC yet invented can match the speed of the human brain. Individually, neurons are certainly slow-coaches compared to even the slowest electronic CPU, but when they are harnessed in parallel, as the human brain does, they can process information at blinding speeds. You have only to consider how fast your own brain can identify obstacles in front of you and get you to react in some appropriate fashion then compare it to the time it takes Spirit or Opportunity to decide that the rock in front of them is an obstacle they have to go round rather than over.

Hardware breakthroughs as well as software ones will be needed before electronic brains became as smart as human ones. (And even then do not expect to see them being placed inside rovers and rocketed off on one-way trips to Mars. The creation of AI's is going to pose all kinds of ethical dilemmas when they do eventuate. For if computers ever do become as smart as human beings one issue that is inevitably going to be raised at some point is whether they should be accorded the same rights as human beings. That would presumably include not being sent off to other planets on what would amount to suicide missions.)

======
Stephen

Posted by: djellison Jun 23 2006, 12:39 PM

QUOTE (Stephen @ Jun 23 2006, 01:32 PM) *
n that respect nothing much has really changed since the days of the Soviet lunar rovers of the 1970s and it seems unlikely to change any time soon; and even if it could change it needs to be remembered that a rover is really only a kind of proxy explorer for its human controllers on Earth.


Actually - that's not quite fair - Sojourner and MER were both able to be given a target point, and make progress toward that target point, and would avoid obsticles in the way, navigate around them and return to the target point. There was one great example where Spirit actually gave up and drove backwards around an obsticle early on.

So yes - you couldn't say to Spirit "go to the top of Husband Hill " from the rim of Bonneville..it still requires people in the loop on a daily basis - BUT - it's a lot smarter than you give credit for really.

Doug

Posted by: Cugel Jun 23 2006, 02:42 PM

QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Jun 16 2006, 07:26 PM) *
Maybe a high-end PC could be as smart as a human, but the breakthrough in software technology has not happened yet.


Ah! So when it finally happens, we can replace all politicians by a low-end PC.

Posted by: dvandorn Jun 23 2006, 05:24 PM

Cugel, we're talking about artificial *intelligence*... that last word has very little to do with politicians.

-the other Doug

Posted by: Greg Hullender Jun 24 2006, 04:52 PM

Has anyone proposed a manned mission for the purpose of controlling one or more rovers from orbit but without attempting to land human beings on the surface? I'd think we'd be able to get a lot more out of the rovers if they were controlled from no more than a few light seconds distance.

I could imagine this working for Mars or Venus, and I'd think that the cost would be a lot less than a mission that aimed to put people on the surface, but I've never seen it discussed anywhere.

Posted by: remcook Jun 24 2006, 05:40 PM

I've heard people on message boards like these suggest something similar, with a Phobos base. I'm sure the agencies have thought about these kind of things like they have thought about lunar bases etc.
I'm afraid we have to be patient for now.

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 24 2006, 08:52 PM

QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Jun 24 2006, 11:52 AM) *
Has anyone proposed a manned mission for the purpose of controlling one or more rovers from orbit but without attempting to land human beings on the surface? I'd think we'd be able to get a lot more out of the rovers if they were controlled from no more than a few light seconds distance.

I could imagine this working for Mars or Venus, and I'd think that the cost would be a lot less than a mission that aimed to put people on the surface, but I've never seen it discussed anywhere.

That is one of the weakest point of NASA's research fund programs which is to improve the capability of robots for unmanned explorations. We are still using Pentium III alike for MSL and MRO. That is still backward. No much work on the interface between smart sensors, computer and software. Now, the Japan is leading on that field. We might send the Asimo, Honda's Humanoid Robot. That robot can walk and salute as any human.

http://asimo.honda.com/inside_asimo.asp?bhcp=1/

Excitement fills the theater as guests witness ASIMO maneuver through a home nvironment using its amazing mobility capabilities such as walking forward and backward, climbing and descending a flight of stairs and even dancing!


However, the objective of Asimo design is to imitate as close as possible to humanoide action. Later, there were others incorporations such as the reasoning to solve problems.

Rodolfo

Posted by: djellison Jun 24 2006, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 24 2006, 09:52 PM) *
We are still using Pentium III alike for MSL and MRO. That is still backward


Actually the CPU's in most modern spacecraft are more like 1/10th the performance of a Pentium 3....and what's more, there's not much requirement for anything better.

Now - you could argue that it's cyclical - the need for more on orbit computing power has not arisen because people have programmed for what is available and that's tended to be 'enough'. Also - spacecraft are tending to become little centres for distributed computer, with each instrument having it's own processor dedicated to the aquisition, compression and storage of it's own data - it leaves the CPU of most spacecraft doing the comparatively simple task of attitude control, data management, and streaming stuff through to telecoms etc.

I'm sure if there were something 10x faster availabel for on orbit computing, it would be utilised...but the fact that such a processing system isn't in place perhaps suggests it isn't really that necessary.

You drop the bloated OS, the graphics and so forth, dedicate the use of your CPU to on orbit computing, and actually, the mathematics behind a spacecraft are comparatively simple.

Doug

Posted by: elakdawalla Jun 24 2006, 10:41 PM

QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Jun 24 2006, 09:52 AM) *
Has anyone proposed a manned mission for the purpose of controlling one or more rovers from orbit...
Yep, that's a pretty clear way to make the most of human brains & robot brawn. Let the humans stay in orbit with a nice big station that you don't need to land, and let them run remotely operated robots all over the place that can stay out there all the time, don't need to come in at night (or in winter), don't need the constant "maintenance" that us humans need. This is considered to be the only feasible way to do "human" exploration of Venus. It was also one of the http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/red_rover_goes_to_mars/history.html. And we still have the pipe dream of a project in which we'd build some kind of nanorovers that could be landed on the Moon -- and then operated by members of the public, for no other reason than how cool it would be for you to be able to sit down at your computer and drive a rover that was actually on the Moon. Wouldn't that be neat? Someday...

--Emily

Posted by: djellison Jun 24 2006, 10:54 PM

I confess...I've driven every functional RRGTM station I could find - and even made a little mosaic from one of them (long lost...but I might try and make another one biggrin.gif )

Doug

(PS - attached one from the Davis Creek Elementary site....the TPS one worked for a bit, then the top half of the interface wouldn't refresh sad.gif If I can get it working again, I'll do a pan from there as well....but I have to say, the calibration process is shocking laugh.gif )

 

Posted by: elakdawalla Jun 24 2006, 11:43 PM

Beautiful work, Doug! biggrin.gif

To get the TPS one to work better I have to give a kick in the pants to the guy who is SUPPOSED to restart its computer daily...who usually remembers to do so for a couple of days and then, well, it doesn't happen anymore...sigh...

--Emily

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 25 2006, 01:29 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 24 2006, 03:58 PM) *
Actually the CPU's in most modern spacecraft are more like 1/10th the performance of a Pentium 3....and what's more, there's not much requirement for anything better.

Now - you could argue that it's cyclical - the need for more on orbit computing power has not arisen because people have programmed for what is available and that's tended to be 'enough'. Also - spacecraft are tending to become little centres for distributed computer, with each instrument having it's own processor dedicated to the aquisition, compression and storage of it's own data - it leaves the CPU of most spacecraft doing the comparatively simple task of attitude control, data management, and streaming stuff through to telecoms etc.

I'm sure if there were something 10x faster availabel for on orbit computing, it would be utilised...but the fact that such a processing system isn't in place perhaps suggests it isn't really that necessary.

You drop the bloated OS, the graphics and so forth, dedicate the use of your CPU to on orbit computing, and actually, the mathematics behind a spacecraft are comparatively simple.

Doug

Yes, sure that NASA has selected rightly the capability of microprocessors for the missions of MRO and MSL since they aren't going to need a more powerfull microprocessors to support the mission cores that is mostly dependent by remote control principally to MSL. If NASA has put more effort about the improvement navigation autonomy of robot, sure MSL will need a more powerfull microprocessor to depend less from Earth remote control. Hence, the geology and biology scientific missions would be more productive with improvement advancement and faster return of results.

Rodolfo

Posted by: elakdawalla Jun 25 2006, 01:39 AM

Question -- would faster microprocessors also require more power?

--Emily

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 25 2006, 01:54 AM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jun 24 2006, 08:39 PM) *
Question -- would faster microprocessors also require more power?

--Emily

Definitely, yes. That is one of the engineering concerns.

However, there is a new variety of microprocessors which are energy efficient, inclusive much energy economy than RAD750 and are much more powerfull such as the Intel Centrino of last genertion which as capable as the last model of Pentium IV.

Rodolfo

Posted by: mchan Jun 25 2006, 05:19 AM

Well, I wouldn't say definitely. In general, power = C*v^2*f where C is a constant depending on the number of gates and the process (how small the gates are), v is the supply voltage, and f is the switching frequency. You can bump up the frequency and keep the same power by improving process and reducing supply voltage.

Terrestrial bound commercial microprocessors have kept pushing process improvements (lower switching and quiescent power per gate), and supply voltage reductions. Analagous improvements in rad-hard microprocessors are more difficult and have been slower-paced since reducing gate geometries and switching threshold voltages typically makes them more susceptible to particle induced single event upsets. And there is less economic demand for rapid improvements in rad-hard proceessors than in commercial processors. Rad-hard processors are thus more likely than commercial processors to require more power for higher switching frequencies.

Posted by: helvick Jun 25 2006, 10:09 AM

QUOTE (mchan @ Jun 25 2006, 06:19 AM) *
Rad-hard processors are thus more likely than commercial processors to require more power for higher switching frequencies.

100% true however it is worth pointing out that as the technologies improve the general trend is towards (much) more computing power per watt within similar processors.

Thehttp://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/sse/rad6000.htm consumes 20watts @ 20Mhz. The http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/sse/rad750.htm comsumes 5-14watts @ 132Mhz. The 750 in it's most stringent radiation hardened mode is at least 20x more efficient (in terms of instructions/watt) than the 6000 used on the MER's.

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 26 2006, 12:12 AM

QUOTE (mchan @ Jun 25 2006, 12:19 AM) *
Well, I wouldn't say definitely. In general, power = C*v^2*f where C is a constant depending on the number of gates and the process (how small the gates are), v is the supply voltage, and f is the switching frequency. You can bump up the frequency and keep the same power by improving process and reducing supply voltage.

Thanks for your comments which are good.

About the power consumption of microprocessors depends what you mentioned (more gates or transitors and frequency, leads greater temperature due to greater power consumption in Watts). There is a limit of temperature that the semiconductor material becomes unstable its electrical conducting properties (leakages currents). That is the Moore's law.

The other factor that influences the consumption of watts is related to the type of material (Bipolar versus CMOS). Historically, there is a growing power consumption when the frecquency and number of circuits grows until a change of material technology, drops the power consumption. As an example: Bi-polar material was requering lots of much power energy versus CMOS. Now there is a new variety of CMOS which needs less power than the original CMOS for the same frequency and density of circuit.

So I was saying the previous post as the general principle. However, a new semiconductor material technology helps to consume less power for the same computing capacity.

Rodolfo

Posted by: mchan Jun 26 2006, 09:13 AM

Sounds like a different Moore than the one I am familiar with. Something may be getting lost in translation here. What you refer to as material, e.g. bipolar vs. cmos, I would refer to as design. Or in your other use of material, I would use process technology. Detailed discussion of semiconductor physics and fabrication are getting somewhat OT here. Suffice to say that there will be continued improvements in computational power per watt in processors, whether commercial or rad-hard. Care should just be taken in comparing performance / power of commercial vs. rad-hard. Somewhat different beasties.

Posted by: djellison Jun 26 2006, 09:36 AM

Actually - the current interpretation of Moore's law is that processor density will double every 18 months. People read that as a double of CPU performance every 18 months, but that's not true.

Doug

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 26 2006, 05:15 PM

I agree to leave the above discussion about the microprocessors power consumption since it is too complex and vast which would lead a very long discussion to understand the technology trends versus power consumption. Besides this theme is not focused to the above topic: ExoMars. I forgive to the audience due to the confusion and noise. sad.gif

Rodolfo

Posted by: Stephen Jun 27 2006, 08:00 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 23 2006, 12:39 PM) *
"[I]n that respect nothing much has really changed since the days of the Soviet lunar rovers of the 1970s and it seems unlikely to change any time soon; and even if it could change it needs to be remembered that a rover is really only a kind of proxy explorer for its human controllers on Earth."

Actually - that's not quite fair - Sojourner and MER were both able to be given a target point, and make progress toward that target point, and would avoid obsticles in the way, navigate around them and return to the target point. There was one great example where Spirit actually gave up and drove backwards around an obsticle early on.

So yes - you couldn't say to Spirit "go to the top of Husband Hill " from the rim of Bonneville..it still requires people in the loop on a daily basis - BUT - it's a lot smarter than you give credit for really.

Doug

I fully appreciate that the remarkable achievements of both Spirit and Opportunity have only really been possible due to the software "smarts" in them. But at the same time we need to keep things in perspective. The reality is that most of the rovers' intelligence is still sitting inside human brains on Earth. In fact had it not been for the greater distance to Mars and the intermittent nature of communications with the rovers those rovers would probably be being driven in real time--or almost real time, as in the case of the Soviet Lunokhods. Or at least the people with control of the funding would doubtless have queried the need to spend money on autonomous driving for them--just as car manufacturers have never (well, at least until recently) bothered spending money developing cars which drive themselves or which prevent their human drivers driving into power poles or off cliffs. They rely on the human beings at the wheel being smart enough not to do such things.

Since the rovers' human masters can't drive their proxies in real time, however, that has necessarily meant giving the rovers a large degree of autonomy. Without that they would not have been able to accomplish their mission at all.

But we should not kid ourselves. The "smarts" the rovers do have are largely there to stop the smart humans doing dumb things with their martian proxies by telling them to do things which may damage the rover or the mission. Like telling the rovers (unwittingly) to drive off cliffs or over tall boulders. In particular AFAIK the rovers have no learning capability. The "smarts" they do have are largely wired into them. If they do make a blunder--like wandering into a sandtrap--it's up to their human masters not them to learn the lesson and then find ways to avoid it happening again, such as tweaking software parameters or not sending them through places where the same conditions that caused the blunder might occur again.

So like I said. Let's keep things in perspective. Spirit and Opportunity are undoubtedly "smarter" than their predecessors. (Remember that famous pic of Sojourner with one wheel perched against a rock many times larger than itself, as if it had been attempting to scale it before it realised its blunder? smile.gif ) But at the same time those "smarts" are also largely an illusion, the product of clever programming, just as an old computer program named "Eliza" could give users the illusion of talking to a certain kind of psychiatrist.

One day rovers & other bots will be able to do a lot more for themselves. They'll need to if their human masters are ever to send them into places where communications with their masters become not merely intermittent but impossible, such as driving down martian lava tubes or diving beneath the ice of Europa. But that day is not here yet.

======
Stephen

Posted by: Cugel Jul 12 2006, 08:02 PM

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/ESA_Preparing_Its_Own_Mars_Rover_999.html

Here they talk about Exomars having more autonomy. It sort of has a backseat driver build in....

Posted by: SkyeLab Jul 17 2006, 02:01 PM

ExoMars prototype on show at Farnborough Air Show.
Link to a webcam situated on the test bed chassis "Bridget"
http://www.eads.net/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/0/96/41401960.html

Story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5186596.stm

Cheers

Brian

Posted by: SFJCody Jul 20 2006, 07:57 AM

QUOTE (SkyeLab @ Jul 17 2006, 03:01 PM) *
ExoMars prototype on show at Farnborough Air Show.

Brian



Saw it there yesterday. Also picked up bunches of leaflets- will see if there's anything new in them (didn't have time to ask questions).

Posted by: lyford Jul 20 2006, 06:02 PM

they have live feeds from the "pancam" -

I call this one

"A Space Enthusiast Makes His Move"

Watch those hands, mister! biggrin.gif


Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jul 20 2006, 06:11 PM

QUOTE (lyford @ Jul 20 2006, 08:02 AM) *
they have live feeds from the "pancam" -

I call this one

"A Space Enthusiast Makes His Move"

Or "After Struggle, Rover (Groper) Finally Reaches Shoulder on the way to Twin Peaks."

Posted by: nprev Jul 21 2006, 12:48 AM

I'd have to characterize this as an assisted encounter: using an intermediate body for trajectory adjustment... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: lyford Jul 21 2006, 01:26 AM

I hope this doesn't devolve into another "near one far one" debate..... tongue.gif

Posted by: dvandorn Jul 21 2006, 03:42 AM

I just want some of you imagery wizards to tell us which of the Twin Peaks is larger, or at least which protrudes more... or are we seeing a rare instance of Nature's perfection, and each mound is exactly the same size?

laugh.gif

-the other Doug

Posted by: lyford Jul 21 2006, 05:09 AM

Apparently the webcam is following standard ESA image release guidelines....

"Updating every 10 seconds" and the same pic is still up there from this morning! (Or has that exhibit closed?) rolleyes.gif

EDIT - FIxed link to pic in earlier post. I guess it's back to being updated - good thing I got a screen grab of our friends - seems the archive is no longer there.

Posted by: karolp Aug 1 2006, 11:22 AM

Oh, it seems there is a lot more to that image! If we shift our attention away from the twin peaks and towards the FACE of the guy, we can easily see that the one behind him is also busy attempting to perform a sort of a Vulcan mind meld :-)

Posted by: GravityWaves Nov 6 2006, 08:45 AM

QUOTE (PhilCo126 @ Jun 22 2006, 08:07 AM) *
Here's the cover of ESA BUlletin we talked about ( FREE copies available via ESA publications )
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/ESA_Publications/index.html



nice looking rover

Posted by: jamescanvin Nov 10 2006, 11:44 PM

The BBC is reporting that the Exomars launch is being pushed back to 2013 sad.gif but that it may now include an orbiter. smile.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6133712.stm

James

Posted by: monitorlizard Dec 15 2006, 01:24 PM

There's a new report out of Canada (www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/14/mars-rover.html, or can access through Nasawatch site) that the Canadian government has refused to give the financial support needed for Canadian companies to build the Exomars rover. Canada was ESA's first and best choice because of their expertise in robotics, so this has sort of left ESA in the lurch. This is bad news for the United States. We've been world leader in program management incompetence for decades, and this seriously threaterns our status.

Seriously, though, the article stated that Exomars was Euope's "planned mission to Mars by 2015". It's unclear from the wording whether they meant launch by 2015 or landing by 2015. 2011 was baseline for a long while, with 2013 as backup, then recently 2013 became the most likely launch. Could the launch be pushed back another two years?

Posted by: Phil Stooke Dec 15 2006, 02:04 PM

Eejits!

Phil

Posted by: ustrax Dec 15 2006, 02:32 PM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Dec 15 2006, 02:04 PM) *
Eejits!

Phil


In good portuguese: F...-se!... mad.gif

In the article there is a reference to a possible brain drain...
Shouldn't ESA enter in the race?...

Posted by: gpurcell Dec 15 2006, 03:36 PM

The Canadian announcement is a real blow to this program...I suspect it will push the launch to 2017 or later--if it even continues.

Posted by: Ant103 Dec 15 2006, 06:29 PM

Sig!
It's a real deception...
Can we expect to make a real Mars exploration in these conditions? Whereas the European Union of the 25 is the first power of the world, just before the USA. But, European Space Agency is like a poor face to NASA.
2013... We can say never! We push, we push, we push and during this time, we can only dream by seeing the synthetics pictures of the rover (more build than the MER...).
This make me angry from the Europe. All this technocrates wo don't have any interest of the space and the science and who can prefer to pay there attention to... to what? So, this fact reveal clearly the Europe status : no goal, no way. No target are fix for the future. We can't stay with this semi-mesure Europe. A lots of project will stay write on the paper, in this time, America have landed on Mars with men and women.
I say it all the time : make the United States of Europe. Or stop it and come back to a pre-war situation when the countries made their own small project.

Sorry about that, but, for me, it's too.

Posted by: ustrax Dec 15 2006, 07:43 PM

QUOTE (Ant103 @ Dec 15 2006, 06:29 PM) *
Sig!
It's a real deception...
Can we expect to make a real Mars exploration in these conditions? Whereas the European Union of the 25 is the first power of the world, just before the USA. But, European Space Agency is like a poor face to NASA.
2013... We can say never! We push, we push, we push and during this time, we can only dream by seeing the synthetics pictures of the rover (more build than the MER...).
This make me angry from the Europe. All this technocrates wo don't have any interest of the space and the science and who can prefer to pay there attention to... to what? So, this fact reveal clearly the Europe status : no goal, no way. No target are fix for the future. We can't stay with this semi-mesure Europe. A lots of project will stay write on the paper, in this time, America have landed on Mars with men and women.
I say it all the time : make the United States of Europe. Or stop it and come back to a pre-war situation when the countries made their own small project.

Sorry about that, but, for me, it's too.


Calm down Ant103...Maybe this step back can represent a turning point...
Who knows?
And comparing ESA's budget with the NASA one isn't fair.
You, and me, every european, contributes each year with the equivalent to a movie ticket.
Maybe it is time to stop and redirect the funds to a more pragmatic way of doing things, not depending on foreign knowledge.
There's one good novelty that cannot be forgotten in spite of this deception being taking our time and thoughts...ESA is asking for the SME's collaboration, and, in my humble opinion, that means advance.
Let's wait and see what's ESA response... wink.gif

Posted by: monitorlizard Dec 16 2006, 12:09 AM

I'm an American, so feel free to ignore this, but I sort of hope ESA simplifies ExoMars a bit. It's extremely ambitious for a first rover mission. We started out with Sojourner, which was quite simple compared to MER, but it gave us experience and confidence to build better rovers. I always thought the Soviet Union took the wrong approach to Mars exploration. They never proved that they could successfully carry out a simple Mars mission, yet they launched ever more complex spacecraft, all of which partially or completely failed. I fear Fobos-Grunt is another step along this path, but we'll see.

I prefer the building block approach to Mars exploration. ExoMars as currently envisioned will likely have a hard time miniaturizing its payload to target weight, and (if I remember correctly) would rely on very sophisticated artificial intelligence software. A somewhat simpler ExoMars could still do fantastic science, and I think would have a higher chance of success. And be more affordable.

But I'm basically conservative in these matters. In fact, I'm scared to death of MSL relying on Skycrane, which I don't think can be given a thorough end-to-end test.

Posted by: djellison Dec 16 2006, 12:57 AM

"a thorough end-to-end test"

Viking 1, 2, Pathfinder, MPL, MERA, MERB....none had end to end tests...it's impossible to replicate the conditions on Earth in any realistic way.

Doug

Posted by: dvandorn Dec 16 2006, 04:03 AM

Exactly, Doug. There are some things you *can* test end-to-end (like the software, for example), and this should always be done (would have likely saved MPL). But on some things, you just have to rely on engineering soundness. The engineering will either work, or it won't, and being thorough in your engineering studies and designs is the best you can ever really do.

Besides, most of the lost Mars probes were lost due to fairly simple mistakes. I'm reminded of that "Red Mars" set of animations someone put up on YouTube recently -- the one where the Red Rover and the Blue Rover are just standing around, talking, when suddenly a probe flashes overhead, burning up in the thin air, screaming "How many feet in a kilometer? How many feet in a kilometer?????"

smile.gif

-the other Doug

Posted by: helvick Dec 16 2006, 09:46 AM

That's a bit of a sweeping generalization there oDoug. Of all the failures only the MCO english/metric units problem and the commanding error that led to the loss of Phobos 1 could really be called "simple". Out of 21 failures by the various participants in the Mars race I'd say that 2 cases caused by simple mistakes hardly deserves to be described as "most".

As to your other point they can and should test, test, test and then test some more where they can but at the same time we have to accept that there is a point where you have to stop chasing perfection and run with what your best engineering tells you is "good enough". That answer will sometimes be wrong and we will lose probes in the future but if we insisted on chasing zero risk we would end up with a robotic program that rarely launched anything.

Posted by: edstrick Dec 16 2006, 10:55 AM

Something that worries me about Exo-Mars: (Without digging into the press releases and mission statistics for the REAL numbers, just working on impressions)

I get the impression the Europeans want to do a MSL class mission, with a MER mass rover, on a Pathfinder budget.

That implies an instrumentatin/hardware packing efficiency like Beagle, construction like an overstuffed Swiss watch, high costs in assembly, testing, disassembly, repair/adjustment, reassembly, retesting, etc. (like the Viking Biology Experiments, which were an engineering nightmare and astounded everybody by working almost perfectly on Mars for nearly the first and only time). And with no real rover experience, on a sub-MER budget. Correct me if I'm wrong or if they're at hand, somebody find me real numbers. I keep feeling something's running on fantasy engineering and budgeting here, like Beagle did.

Posted by: monitorlizard Dec 16 2006, 02:35 PM

It does sometimes seem like Europe had visions of taking the lead in Mars exploration with a single ExoMars rover. But ExoMars will be a first generation Mars rover for ESA, while MSL will be a third generation rover for the US. A complex first mission isn't imposible, but it usually means massive cost overruns. Ask anyone in the Pentagon, where ambitious program cost overruns are a way of life (space projects and others). While faster-better-cheaper hasn't been officially pronounced dead, it really only works for relatively simple mission concepts.

About Skycrane, what I was thinking was that I'd like to see something like the Viking test where they took a balloon up to 100,000 feet or so and dropped a Viking component (aeroshell or something, I can't really remember). It would be nice to see a Skycrane with a dummy mass dropped from high altitude and actually firing/flying as it would at Mars. Of course, it's not practical or affordable, and would probably have to land on Mt. Everest to simulate Mars surface pressure. I do have confidence JPL will do everything resonably possible to make Skycrane work, though.

Posted by: ustrax Dec 16 2006, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (edstrick @ Dec 16 2006, 10:55 AM) *
I get the impression the Europeans want to do a MSL class mission, with a MER mass rover, on a Pathfinder budget.


Probably you're right...
And HOW I would widh they could find the formula for that...
There's one, certainly...
And maybe we, Europeans, wuill find it, with all the steps undone...Maybe it is time to give a step forward...
Europe has the funds and, above all, the intellingence to proceed a secure space exploration program, including MARS...
With our way of being it wouldn't surprise me to have an Euro-Russian-Chinese mission to be the first to land on Mars...It wouldn't... wink.gif

Posted by: dvandorn Dec 16 2006, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (helvick @ Dec 16 2006, 04:46 AM) *
That's a bit of a sweeping generalization there oDoug. Of all the failures only the MCO english/metric units problem and the commanding error that led to the loss of Phobos 1 could really be called "simple". Out of 21 failures by the various participants in the Mars race I'd say that 2 cases caused by simple mistakes hardly deserves to be described as "most".

Perhaps... though, when you look at the numbers, it seems that the majority of Mars probe failures fall into distinct categories:

Decent engineering, bad workmanship: This plagued a lot of the early Soviet Mars probes.

Launch failure: This is responsible for 40% of the American failures -- Mariners 3 and 8.

Simple mistakes: In addition to MCO and Phobos 1, I would add the failure to fully evaluate how the MPL software would react when the landing gear deployed as a "simple" mistake, making this category responsible for another 40% of American failures. Granted, this probably doesn't qualiify as "most," but it's only equaled by lauinch failures, at least for the American program. (And, hey, wasn't one of the Viking spacecraft accidentally shut down for good by a bad command load? That sort of falls in here, too...)

Plain old bad luck: I put a few failures in this category, including the Mars 6 lander, Beagle 2, the DS2 penetrators, and even Mars Observer. In any complex mechanism, you will always have mechanical failures, and these missions tended to run into them at critical points in the missions. Either that, or had the bad luck of hitting the ground at the wrong angle, or onto a badly placed rock, or onto the side of a hill, or during a global dust storm... in other words, just getting on Mr. Murphy's bad side.

So, OK, maybe "most" isn't appropriate. But you gotta admit, of the various categories, it ain't insignificant, either... smile.gif

QUOTE (helvick @ Dec 16 2006, 04:46 AM) *
As to your other point they can and should test, test, test and then test some more where they can but at the same time we have to accept that there is a point where you have to stop chasing perfection and run with what your best engineering tells you is "good enough". That answer will sometimes be wrong and we will lose probes in the future but if we insisted on chasing zero risk we would end up with a robotic program that rarely launched anything.

I totally agree with the old engineering maxim that "Better is the mortal enemy of good enough." I just think that, in some cases, you have to raise the bar a bit in your definition of "good enough." I would say that, for example, a full simulated run of the EDL software, with all expected events represented accurately in the simulation environment, ought to be an absolute requirement for all Mars landers. The failure of this box being checked off (or even existing on the checklist, for all I know) in the MPL development cycle most likely caused its failure. It's this kind of thing -- flying the mission with a fatal flaw in its software that could have been caught with a single full-sim run of the EDL software -- that I think you just have to commit yourself to achieving, regardless of its impact on development costs.

Of course, as with anything I write here, that's just my own $.02's worth... rolleyes.gif

-the other Doug

Posted by: climber Dec 16 2006, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (monitorlizard @ Dec 16 2006, 03:35 PM) *
Of course, it's not practical or affordable, and would probably have to land on Mt. Everest to simulate Mars surface pressure.

Much much higher than that Monitorlizard! There's still 20% atmosphere pressure on top of Mt Everest... you can breeze safely.

Posted by: edstrick Dec 17 2006, 08:47 AM

"...Mars 6 lander, Beagle 2, the DS2 penetrators, and even Mars Observer..."

It's hard to say what killed Mars 6, insufficient telemetry or they've never admitted what they concluded <correct me if I'm wrong>

Beagle, DS2 and Observer had systematic management problems and post mortem analyses indicated all had fairly serious inadequacies in testing and perhaps design. DS2 was, the report concluded, clearly not ready to fly.

You can have marginally designed spacecraft that fly perfect missions and you never know how close they came to disaster, and you can have well designed robust vehicles taken out by one 'oops', in design, manufacturing or flight.

Posted by: monitorlizard Dec 17 2006, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (climber @ Dec 16 2006, 02:35 PM) *
Much much higher than that Monitorlizard! There's still 20% atmosphere pressure on top of Mt Everest... you can breeze safely.

Of course, I meant Skycrane would have to land on Mt. Everest to simulate Mars surface pressure at the bottom of Valles Marineris on a very cold day, with carbon dioxide jets erupting.

Posted by: climber Dec 17 2006, 07:44 PM

QUOTE (monitorlizard @ Dec 17 2006, 06:51 PM) *
Of course, I meant Skycrane would have to land on Mt. Everest to simulate Mars surface pressure at the bottom of Valles Marineris on a very cold day, with carbon dioxide jets erupting.

Now I understand why you don't trust Skycrane! In a sense you're right; if you're precise enough to land on an eruptive jet, you don't even need a Skycrane biggrin.gif

Posted by: Ant103 Dec 18 2006, 11:10 AM

QUOTE (edstrick)
I get the impression the Europeans want to do a MSL class mission, with a MER mass rover, on a Pathfinder budget.

Good biggrin.gif I will note that!

I hear here that ESA have to make a less ambitious missions, like NASA for the rovers (Pathfinder before MER, and MER before MSL). But, can NASA communicate the testings result to ESA in the aim to win some time? Remember that the atmospheric entry of MPF wasn't testing because this mission used the same system of Viking mission.

Posted by: nprev Jan 16 2007, 03:24 AM

Sorry if this is old news, but just noticed that an advanced life-detection instrument is under development for ExoMars by the US Scripps Oceanographic Institute. Looks promising! smile.gif

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=768

Posted by: Rakhir Jan 18 2007, 09:59 AM

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10977-europes-mars-rover-may-need-to-slim-down.html

QUOTE
In a meeting with the press in Paris, France, Dordain said the rover was over-burdened with instruments compared with the launch capability of the Russian Soyuz rocket that is contracted to take it aloft.

ESA members will have to either lose some of its planned instruments so it can be launched by a Soyuz, or opt for a bigger launcher, which will cost more money, he said. In 2005, ESA members earmarked €650 million ($838 million) for ExoMars.

Furthermore, the agency is not yet certain how it will get precious data from the rover back to Earth. Dordain said he was "not 100% sure" that a NASA orbiter would be able to act as a relay, and this raised the question as to whether a European craft would be needed to play the linking role.

Posted by: climber Jan 18 2007, 10:42 AM

QUOTE (Rakhir @ Jan 18 2007, 10:59 AM) *
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10977-europes-mars-rover-may-need-to-slim-down.html

You know what, the simple way is to push it back another 2 years, so, they'll put it on a Vega rocket,so, they'll have to scale down the whole think so, they'll push it back another 2 years,...
I thought they've comited to an Ariane 5 launcher a long time ago mad.gif
They even once said that comitment for ExoMars was OVER what they needed (too much monay tongue.gif ).
BTW, Spirit will be 1000 Sol OVER garenty next week. smile.gif wink.gif

Posted by: Analyst Jan 18 2007, 11:23 AM

I always wondered how they put these many instruments into a MER rover for this budget. Plus a drill.

As for the relay orbiter: maybe MEX, pretty surely MRO, hopefully Scout 2011, MSTO 2013. I don't see this problem. I think Europe wants an own (science) orbiter after MEX (this is o.k.) and they hope to get funding if they talk about a relay problem I can't see. I am afraid they put the whole ExoMars rover in jeopardy by this move. Costs are rising and rising, schedules erodes, politics pull the plug.

Ariane V is pure overkill if you are coming from Soyus. To justify this you need a 3 ton spacecraft (orbiter and lander), see budget problems/risks above.

Analyst

Posted by: climber Jan 18 2007, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (Analyst @ Jan 18 2007, 12:23 PM) *
I always wondered how they put these many instruments into a MER rover for this budget. Plus a drill.


This as always surprised me too plus the fact that we (Europe) as no experience whatsoever in Rovers.

QUOTE
Ariane V is pure overkill if you are coming from Soyus. To justify this you need a 3 ton spacecraft (orbiter and lander), see budget problems/risks above.


You're right since a dedicated Relay-orbiter shouldn't be that heavy. Do you know how much the most upgraded Soyus version launched from Kourou can sent to Mars? And 2013 shouldn't be the best window I guess.

Posted by: edstrick Jan 18 2007, 11:56 AM

They *were* (it seemed to me) planning to put a MSL set or equivalent of instruments on a MER size rover, more or less. I was more than skeptical. Beagle II was packed to it's gills with an unusual amount of instrumenter per kilogram of Beagle, and it looked like they were planning the same for ExoMars. It looks like a bit of engineering reality is setting in....

Posted by: ustrax Jan 18 2007, 12:10 PM

Before any previous judgements it is better to read the Pasteur progress letters.
ALL of them.

EDITED: Oops! Forgot teh link...http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Aurora/SEMNGYXEM4E_0.html

ESA's site is a treasure ark... smile.gif

Yesterday started the scientific peer-review meeting at ESTEC, it ends tomorrow, after that things will get clearer...

Posted by: power Jan 23 2007, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (ustrax @ Jan 18 2007, 01:10 PM) *
...
Yesterday started the scientific peer-review meeting at ESTEC, it ends tomorrow, after that things will get clearer...

as far as i know the peer-review finished ok for the geophysical package GEP ...

concerning the size of exomars and the rocket selection - this is a story from last year when they found that the rover is not capable to include all intended instruments. they have two options: built a larger rover, but that brings problems how to put it in soyuz-fregat (essentially the problem is not only the weight, but also size including the airbags) or kick out some instruments. it seems that if they get funding for ariane 5, they would choose the first option. the orbiter question is kind of misunderstanding - there would be an orbiter (carrier) anyway, the only change would be that it will be (again with additional funding) equipped with scientific instruments.

Posted by: ollopa May 17 2007, 01:41 PM

My spies tell me that there is some very bad news in the pipeline re ExoMars.

I understand the ExoMars baseline is being re-classified to a planetary protection IVb rather than IVc.

This means ExoMars cannot now land in a "special region". Something to do with the cost of meeting IVc standards.

Will they now re-name the mission?

Posted by: centsworth_II May 17 2007, 02:16 PM

When I saw "bad news", I thought 'oh,oh... cuts in instrumentation,
or *shudder* a threat of cutting the entire mission. To me,
any place on Mars can be made interesting with the right instruments.
So, just as long as a fully loaded ExoMars gets to Mars, I'll be happy.

Posted by: ustrax May 17 2007, 02:22 PM

Here are the classifications:
"Missions to Mars

Category IV for Mars is subdivided into IVa, IVb, and IVc:

Category IVa. Lander systems not carrying instruments for the investigations of extant martian life are restricted to a biological burden no greater than Viking lander pre-sterilization levels

Category IVb. For lander systems designed to investigate extant martian life, all of the requirements of Category IVa apply, along with the following requirement:

The entire landed system must be sterilized at least to Viking post-sterilization biological burden levels, or to levels of biological burden reduction driven by the nature and sensitivity of the particular life-detection experiments, whichever are more stringent

OR

The subsystems which are involved in the acquisition, delivery, and analysis of samples used for life detection must be sterilized to these levels, and a method of preventing recontamination of the sterilized subsystems and the contamination of the material to be analyzed is in place.

Category IVc. For missions which investigate martian special regions even if they do not include life detection experiments, all of the requirements of Category IVa apply, along with the following requirement."

From http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zVmYpbno0dUJ:cosparhq.cnes.fr/Scistr/Pppolicy.htm+planetary+protection+IVb&hl=pt-PT&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=pt.

EDITED: Doesn't seem like it is not allowed to and in special regions, just that they have to take more severe sterilization measures...or this or my english is failing me... wink.gif

Posted by: centsworth_II May 17 2007, 02:42 PM

QUOTE (ustrax @ May 17 2007, 10:22 AM) *
... just that they have to take more severe sterilization measures...

But this is the kind of "just" that can lead to cost overruns, cuts in
science, or worse. If the resolution is going to a "less interesting"
place. I won't be as disappointed as I would be with major science
cuts. And what at first appears uninteresting can hold some surprises.

Posted by: ustrax May 17 2007, 02:47 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ May 17 2007, 03:42 PM) *
But this is the kind of "just" that can lead to cost overruns, cuts in
science, or worse. If the resolution is going to a "less interesting"
place. I won't be as disappointed as I would be with major science
cuts. And what at first appears uninteresting can hold some surprises.


Here's the definition of "special region":

"A Special Region is defined as a region within which terrestrial organisms are likely to propagate, OR a region which is interpreted to have a high potential for the existence of extant martian life forms.

Given current understanding, this is apply to regions where liquid water is present or may occur. Specific examples include but are not limited to:

-Subsurface access in an area and to a depth where the presence of liquid water is probable

-Penetrations into the polar caps

-Areas of hydrothermal activity."

Dear centsworth_II, I can't see how this re-classification can imply the elimination of special regions as ExoMars target...am I missing something here? By my understanding as long as the measures are adopted they can land it at any location "special" or not.

Posted by: centsworth_II May 17 2007, 03:12 PM

QUOTE (ustrax @ May 17 2007, 10:47 AM) *
By my understanding as long as the measures are adopted they can land it at any location "special" or not.

I'm certainly not the one to go to for expert advice on this, but....The special region measures are what
makes for a class IVc mission. Deciding a mission is not to be class IVc indicates to me that it has been
decided not to take these measures, so the mission will not be able to go to a "special region".

Posted by: ustrax May 17 2007, 03:34 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ May 17 2007, 04:12 PM) *
The special region measures are what makes for a class IVc mission.


My english misleads me... rolleyes.gif
I believe you are correct...Even if landing on a non special region ExoMars will turn it into one... wink.gif

Posted by: centsworth_II May 17 2007, 03:59 PM

Hopefully ExoMars will land in a region that was
VERY SPECIAL millions of years ago, even if today
it is dry.

Posted by: AlexBlackwell May 17 2007, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (ollopa @ May 17 2007, 03:41 AM) *
Will they now re-name the mission?

How about EuroMER?

Posted by: SkyeLab May 21 2007, 03:45 PM

BBC News article on EXOMARS


Critical review for Mars rover
By Jonathan Amos

"Europe's plans to send a robotic rover to the Red Planet in 2013 face a critical review this week.

A top-level panel will meet in Paris to choose a single design concept for the mission and determine whether the ambitious proposals are affordable."

rest of article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6675287.stm

Cheers

Brian

Posted by: monitorlizard May 22 2007, 05:34 AM

Look for the Exo-Mars budget to go "to infinity and beyond!" Oh, wait, that's trademarked, but I do think costs will end up in excess of one billion euros (or one thousand million euros, if you prefer). Both the American Surveyor and Viking landing programs ended up costing far in excess of their original budgets. The Soviet Mars landers may have come in within budget but, well, they all failed. Think of a near-doubling of the original cost estimate as an initiation fee into a very exclusive club.

Or Exo-Mars could descope, which is also a popular option in space exploration these days.

When did I get so pretentious?! Well, good luck to Exo-Mars, but remember history is a harsh teacher.

Posted by: Cugel May 22 2007, 08:31 AM

Why does it have to cost a billion? NASA/JPL have landed 2 rovers on Mars for less than that and both have more than 8 kilograms of payload. Some of it might have to do with the close proximity of the 2003 Mars opposition (and sending 2 MERs) but surely that doesn't account for half a billion euros?

Posted by: Stu May 22 2007, 09:09 AM

QUOTE (Cugel @ May 22 2007, 09:31 AM) *
Why does it have to cost a billion?


Because... sigh... this is Europe, and most large European organisations - Govts, industries, whatever - couldn't keep to a budget if their lives depended on it. Going over-budget is as popular a sport here as football; there almost seems to be a competition to see who can toss the most money down the biggest hole in the shortest time. huh.gif

As much as I'm looking forward to seeing it working, and it might do some spectacular science, I have serious concerns about ExoMars, and have done for a while. Lots of beautiful, shiny "Top Gear" computer images, brave bold plans, but a very optimistic budget scribbled on the back of a cigarette packet. In pencil. If the budget begins to climb then there will be some seriously deep intakes of breath and support could start to evaporate. As always, I shall hope for the best, but fear the worst. unsure.gif

Posted by: Analyst May 22 2007, 09:10 AM

QUOTE
Because... sigh... this is Europe, and most large European organisations - Govts, industries, whatever - couldn't keep to a budget if their lives depended on it. Going over-budget is as popular a sport here as football; there almost seems to be a competition to see who can toss the most money down the biggest hole in the shortest time.


I disagree. This has nothing to do with being Europe or not. It is so because it is hard to do an therefore expensive. Spaceflight is not cheap.

ESA tries to fly a rover:

- with instruments capable of science like MSL (or Viking)
- on a solar powerded rover the size of MER
- within a MER budget.

Plus they want:

- a complex drilling system (1m to 2m deep)
- a drop package for seismic science and
- a communications orbiter.

Plus they do a Martian landing for the first time. To get all this, 1 billion Euros is the lower bound, not the upper! If they can't get the money needed, they have to do one or more of the following:

- rescope science (like IVc to IVb and others)
- cancel the drop package and/or the orbiter
- delay launch again
- cancel the drill.

Analyst

Posted by: djellison May 22 2007, 09:21 AM

QUOTE (Analyst @ May 22 2007, 10:10 AM) *
It is so because it is hard to do an therefore expensive. Spaceflight is not cheap.


Stu didn't say it wasn't going to be expensive. He said it would go over budget. Such projects always do.

My personal take is that Exomars is too bold for a first landing. We need to scale back - do the Netlander type mission (4 small landers) with a delivering orbiter this time around (€600-800M would be a sensible figure for that) - and the delivering orbiter can then be a relay for a rover 4 years later. Not only that - but 4 chances to land on Mars. OK - so it's the same hardware every time but as long as you have that MER flexibility in deplyment times etc - then you can learn from the first lander for the follow ons.

Then, 4 years later - when you know how to land on Mars, do Exomars.

Doug

Posted by: Analyst May 22 2007, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ May 22 2007, 09:21 AM) *
... but as long as you have that MER flexibility in deplyment times etc - then you can learn from the first lander for the follow ons.


This suggests you first enter orbit and then land one by one. I am not sure the costs (extra propellant for MOI and retro firing for each lander = bigger spacecraft = bigger launch vehicle) are worth the benefit of adjusting the EDL timeline a little within the limited margin you have.

Analyst

Posted by: Stu May 22 2007, 10:04 AM

QUOTE (Analyst @ May 22 2007, 10:10 AM) *
I disagree. This has nothing to do with being Europe or not. It is so because it is hard to do an therefore expensive. Spaceflight is not cheap.


As Doug pointed out - I would have done myself, but was catching up with this week's Dr Who... got to get your priorities right smile.gif - I didn't say spaceflight is cheap. Anyone who believes that believes in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas. I was making the point that something that is already expensive is destined to be even MORE expensive here, that's just the way things are here. Without getting all political and getting my hand slapped - rightly - it's a fact that if Europe was covered in money trees with golden egg laying geese sitting on their branches they would still make a loss when harvested... tongue.gif

At the risk of sounding like a heretic here, I have a sneaking suspicion that this mission is just a bit too ambitious for us right now, not just in terms of the expense but also the technical challenges too. This seems a bit like a "run before we can walk" scenario to me. Mars is a harsh, unforgiving world that takes the confident plans of even the cockiest engineers and laughs in their faces. You listed all the impressive elements of the mission there Analyst, but I can't help thinking that's a target list for the martian ghoul that has already claimed the souls of so many previous probes. So much cutting edge tech there, it just seems too much to be possible, based on our experience so far.

Although technical faults are the reason for many space missions, I think over-confidence, arrogance and impatience kill more. The shining gold, Transformer-like ExoMars we've all seen beautiful images of will trundle across Mars one day, I'm sure. But I don't think that day will dawn soon, at least not until Europe has succesfully dropped a few landers on Mars first.

Posted by: djellison May 22 2007, 10:21 AM

QUOTE (Analyst @ May 22 2007, 10:55 AM) *
This suggests you first enter orbit and then land one by one.


Yup. That would be my plan. Consider the viking spacecraft - now take the lander mass, split it four ways...and you're done. >130kg per lander. Double the B2 spec. It would take an Ariane V to loft it - but it's very doable and systematically, preferable to Exomars imho.

Doug

Posted by: ustrax May 22 2007, 10:32 AM

I don't know if someone already posted this but, anyway, it may be useful.
http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/pasteur/cdf-14a-exomars-09.pdf

Posted by: Analyst May 22 2007, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ May 22 2007, 10:21 AM) *
Consider the viking spacecraft - now take the lander mass, split it four ways...and you're done. >130kg per lander. Double the B2 spec. It would take an Ariane V to loft it - but it's very doable and systematically, preferable to Exomars imho.


I agree. This would also fit into the overall Mars strategy. MEPEG is considering a netlander style mission too for the 2016/2018 timeframe but it fits very bad into the budget and the other priorities (2013 MSTO, 2016 MSL type rover/two MER type rovers, 2018 Scout (or vice versa). So Europe could do something special and important here.

But lets face it: Four small immobile landers and an orbiter are not sexy today when others have big rovers. And sex sells. So politics can make this strategy impossible. Because the general public (and the decision makers in politics) will ask: "Why do they have rovers and we only have small landers". This is not only about science, its is also very much about the feelings of people, and about money from these people. About being better than others.

You can't compare one by one but think of Deep Impact: A pretty expensive mission with very limited scientific results gets funded because it is sexy. Other may have been better, but not sexy.

Analyst

PS: The question remains: Is it needed to enter orbit first? Does the risk reduction offset the extra costs?

Posted by: djellison May 22 2007, 10:58 AM

QUOTE (Analyst @ May 22 2007, 11:52 AM) *
"Why do they have rovers and we only have small landers".


or "Cool- we've got four landers, they've only got a rover"

or "So we just blew €1B on that rover and it crashed"

or "Thanks to the insightfull and accurate reporting by the mainstream media, I understand the science value in four small landers as help toward our understanding of global meterology and the potential for interesting results from seismic study, furthermore they offer an ideal engineering testbed for technologies to land future, more expensive payloads on the surface. On reflection, as a man in the street I understand that a Netlander type mission of multiple small probes offers a more sensible option as our second mission to Mars and is a more robust pathway looking forward in Europes own planetary science programme"

If a mission doesn't come across as Sexy - you don't abandon it - you explain why it IS Sexy. Now yes - Rovers are sexier than landers - but 1 failed rover isn't very sexy at all. Two working landers out of four is. The public reaction to Phoenix will be interesting in this regard.

Doug

Posted by: Stu May 22 2007, 11:12 AM

In the run-up to its landing day, Beagle 2 was sexier to the British media than a rain-soaked Keira Knightley... by Boxing Day it was about as sexy as one of those gap-toothed, druggie chav mums so beloved of the Jeremy Kyle show.

Sex might sell, but only as long as things are going well.

Posted by: monitorlizard May 22 2007, 11:59 AM

On the other hand...

Isn't there something in Chinese philosophy like victory is glorious but failure is almost more glorious because you had the courage to try to do something that was impossible? Maybe Europe should roll the dice with ExoMars, with only small descopes (like dropping the geophysical package, which isn't part of the rover proper). There does come a time when additional launch delays will actually start to increase the cost of the mission, and 2013 still gives a lot of time to develop things.

On the other other hand:

There are a few things that may be unrealistic for a first rover, like too much autonomy and too many instruments for the payload mass allocated. Whole instruments may have to be dropped rather than descoping all of them. I don't see how you could reduce the weight of the drill, for example. A drill has to be made of sturdy stuff to withstand the vibrations it produces.

I'm an American, but if I'm waffling, it's a Belgian waffle. smile.gif

Posted by: Analyst May 22 2007, 12:08 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ May 22 2007, 11:12 AM) *
Sex might sell, but only as long as things are going well.


The problem with this argument (and Doug's as well) is that you have to sell it *before* you can fail or not.

I am only saying how I think mission selections often work, not how they should work. And history proves this in many respects: The addition of JunoCam, Deep Impact, New Horizons was sold at least to some degree as the mission to the unexplored 9th planet (Would it be funded now?), MER (over MRO), the late addition of a rover to MPF. Gravity Probe B is one opposite example. Public and political opinions often are critical. This has to be considered, if we like it or not.

To explain why something is sexy is the only way. But it is also the hard way. And even scientists like sexy missions like rovers. Because they are human too.

Analyst

Posted by: Stu May 22 2007, 12:32 PM

I hear what you're saying, Analyst, I really do, but the problem here - and I think it's a basic one - is that we'tre preaching to the choir here. Everyone here knows this stuff already, you could say it's in our blood, so we don't need to be convinced anything that leaves Earth is "sexy". It's what we do.

... but the people Out There, the ones struggling to pay their rents or mortgages, or fill their cars with petrol, or pay for their prescription drugs, or buy a new pair of shoes for their kid to go to school in, don't see things the same way. Many of them completely disagree with spending any money on space travel, they just see it as a waste and can't be convinced otherwise. We'll never win them over, and I don't even try any more to be honest. The people I do work on are the ones who support space exploration but only if it results in scientific progress here on Earth, or, at the very least, provides us with something pretty or amazing to look at. Take DEEP IMPACT. In the build up to that I was giving lots of talks, and describing its mission. It soon became clear that if I told people how scientifically valuable the mission would be, how it would provide us with insight into the chemical composition and physical structure of a cometary nucleus, they would look at the walls and their shoes or pick their noses with an air of "So what?" about them. Ah, but when I told them that we were going to fire a copper cannon shell into a space iceberg, that would blast a great big hole out of it and let us look into a great big crater, well, they wanted to know more. That's not dumbing down, it's finding the right approach. (With them leaning forwards and not picking their noses any more I could hit them with the science...)

So, we have to give them - the People Out There - space missions that will give them something back, and that means space missions that have a good chance of succeeding. In this modern visual age, "succeeding" really means - again, for non UMSF people - sending back lots of amazing pics. If the MERs had landed safely, with everything working except their cameras, they could still have done some science but there would have been zero public interest in them. So, ExoMars will only succeed if it "does a MER" and send back amazing pics. I think that, as it is, it is too complicated a beast to work, especially as it's a virgin design and being built and operated by people doing this for the first time, who are also leapfrogging less ambitious and challenging projects to get to Mars.

It's all about maximising chances of success and building foundations for future programs. Take a shortcut and you risk getting lost.

Posted by: djellison May 22 2007, 12:58 PM

QUOTE (Analyst @ May 22 2007, 01:08 PM) *
MER (over MRO),


That was a technical decision. The solar power situation was preferential for the rovers in '04 - and the MRO payload needed longer for development.

I do see what you're saying - and I would rate an orbiter as less sexy than a lander - BUT - if you consider the actual public attention to Spirit and Opportunity - it trends to near zero exponentially. from the day that first big colour picture is released.

http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=mars+rover&graph=weekly_img&sa=N

i.e. the public didn't really care that it was going to move. Wheels are cool - but a pretty picture is possibly enough. A slight spike with Victoria, but that's about it. I think the sexy-rating is a valid point - but I think it only counts if a mission is sexy 'enough'. Any lander is sexy enough if it works - wheels or not. An orbiter that can take cool pictures is sexy enough. Taking all the Discovery program missions into consideration for example - I would say that only Genesis and Kepler lack an ammount of 'wow' that can get the public attention.

Infact - the more I think about it - the wow factor is little more than a level of undertanding so that people can go "Oh - I get it

Doug

Posted by: ustrax May 22 2007, 02:42 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ May 22 2007, 01:32 PM) *
especially as it's a virgin design and being built and operated by people doing this for the first time, who are also leapfrogging less ambitious and challenging projects to get to Mars.


Stu...I really can't understand you...
Where's the poetry when you need it, the will to challenge to take a step ahead, to innovate and not only emulate?
Are we scared or what? Scared after MEx, VEx, Rosetta, Huygens?
OK, its a rover...Isn't ESA, and its contributors allowed to be bold?
They're doing it, or at least trying to do it for the first time, to them all my respect and admiration.
How many other failures brought us here?
How much did slipped the budget for Phoenix which we all eagerly wait to succeed?
I truly hope they dare to advance and reach their goals, they deserve it.
Because I want to see that proudy, shiny ExoMars in "your" museum. wink.gif

EDITED: I really want to see what will be the consequences of http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM4UU8RR1F_index_0.html...

Posted by: centsworth_II May 22 2007, 02:44 PM

Making landers sexy:

A very small, simple rover could be added to each lander.
Just a good camera on wheels so that you could say, "that's
an interesting rock over there, let's go take a look." Additional
science could be done through the use of filters and possibly a
calibrated light source. (Also would need a brush for dusting.)

This may sound silly but the general interest level would be
increased by orders of magnitude. Just look at where all the
interest focused on the Sojourner mission.

Posted by: Stu May 22 2007, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (ustrax @ May 22 2007, 03:42 PM) *
Stu...I really can't understand you...


Don't worry about that ustrax my friend, many before you have tried and failed... wink.gif

The thing is, I DESPERATELY want a European presence on and not just above Mars - I joined UMSF back in the days when it was all about Beagle after all - but only when it's Right and can be Done Right. My greatest fear is that we go too soon and **** it up, which would put the whole program back by, what, a decade? Believe me, if I could personally fund ExoMars to be all it could be, and to enjoy guaranteed success, my cheque book would be out so fast there'd be a window-rattling sonic boom! But that's just fantasy land for any space project, there's no such thing as guaranteed success, and anyway, as much as I want to sit here looking at pics sent back by ExoMars I'm frightened - and I don't use the word casually - that this is such a leap forward, a leap over many milestones that would only improve the chances of a succesful surface rover mission, that it's too big a stretch, you know? It's fine to be bold, and brave, but not reckless, and certainly not blindly optimistic. Space exploration = money, and that money comes from people like you and I via politicians... and with ExoMars being such a hugely expensive mission I really believe that it should only be done if it can be done right, and there seems to me to be a lot of development work left to do before we're ready to take that step, that's all I'm saying.

A major failure, of a project like ExoMars, would cripple ESA, not just financially but in terms of public perception and public and political support. Personally I'd go for it, and see what numbers came up when the dice rolled, but Im not the one who will have to pick up the pieces afterwards, to justify the money spent, and try to convince people post-failure that I deserve the money to try again. huh.gif

Babies that try to run before they can walk usually crack their heads open on a cupboard. I don't want to see that happen to ESA.

Posted by: djellison May 23 2007, 06:54 AM

QUOTE (ustrax @ May 22 2007, 03:42 PM) *
Are we scared or what? Scared after MEx, VEx, Rosetta, Huygens?
OK, its a rover...Isn't ESA, and its contributors allowed to be bold?


Bold? Yes. Run before they can walk? I'd rather they didn't. It's about the right mission at the right time.

Maybe they'll decide to build ExoMars in full, with all the bells and whistles, spend €1B, and in 6 years time it'll all work beautifully.

BUT - the need for a set of smaller missions (the NetLander idea) is just screaming out to be done - and it is SO right for ESA right now. Landing on Titan is - once you get there - comparatively easy. Big thick atmosphere, low gravity - couldn't be a better place to land. Mars is REALLY hard - much MUCH harder than Titan. We need to practice it. We're not going to be spending Viking type money, but we're trying to jump to MER before going through Pathfinder. That's just no very sensible. NetLander gives us the opportunity to do something utterly unique, and get huge landing experience at the same time and maybe even pay back NASA for the millions and millions of €'s worth of relay and DSN time we've used by using the orbiter to relay data from some of their own spacecraft.

ExoMars has issues at this stage. Mass issues, or the ssue of fitting a payload that JPL are using a 700kg rover for, into an MER sized rover, or even the simple fact that the the #1 experts in the field of landing with airbags are abandoning it in favour of something else because they can't make it work for payloads heavier than MER...payloads like ExoMars ( which, with an MER like rover, and an active left-behind component - it would be ).

And the final point - if ESA put ExoMars on Mars tomorrow, succesfully - then we would all go utterly utterly insane as a beautiful vehicle rolls around mars taking stunning pictures every day - and we don't see a damn thing. I want ESA to grow up in terms of outreach expectations and standards before it blows it completely on a mission like ExoMars.

Maybe they fly it in full, maybe it works, maybe they 'get' Outreach, maybe they find the right landing site, maybe the instruments work. Too many maybes for me.

Doug

Posted by: Mariner9 May 23 2007, 02:46 PM

One of the often stated goals of Aurora is sample return and eventual manned landings.

ESA seems to think it can go from MEX (which they conveniently forget leaned heavily on Rosetta inheritance), to ExoMars in one step, then casually move on to a Sample Return.

This from an agency that has only got Beagle (which went 'crunch') on it's list of Mars Landing accomplishments.

The Aurora program is beyond ambitious. It is a fantasy. A very expensive fantasy.

Posted by: Stu May 23 2007, 03:07 PM

QUOTE (Mariner9 @ May 23 2007, 03:46 PM) *
This from an agency that has only got Beagle (which went 'crunch') on it's list of Mars Landing accomplishments.


We don't know Beagle went crunch... it could be sitting there in one piece right now, but failed after landing for some reason.

I like to think so anyway. Hate the idea of it being smashed to bits. sad.gif

Posted by: djellison May 23 2007, 03:09 PM

QUOTE (Mariner9 @ May 23 2007, 03:46 PM) *
This from an agency that has only got Beagle (which went 'crunch') on it's list of Mars Landing accomplishments.


To be fair, ESA involvement in B2 wasn't that much. B2 was as much an ESA failure as the PFS mirror on VEX.

Doug
(Personally - I think B2 burnt up in the atmosphere due to a poor aeroshell design derived from Huygens.)

Posted by: ustrax May 23 2007, 04:02 PM

QUOTE (Mariner9 @ May 23 2007, 03:46 PM) *
The Aurora program is beyond ambitious. It is a fantasy. A very expensive fantasy.


I'll save this sentence for future use...rolleyes.gif

Posted by: spdf May 23 2007, 07:25 PM

I ve got a few questions.

Since the small Netlanders would have been much smaller than ExoMars, do we really learn that much for the larger ExoMars, or would it just give a very dangerous sense of security?

Wasn´t Netlander canceled because the mission was too expensive? So you´ve got a very expensive mission, but as someone mentioned before ESA doesn´t have any successfull landings on Mars so far. This would mean the risk for Netlander is very high too.
So whatever ESA does, Netlander or ExoMars, the risk is very huge anyway. From this point of view I don´t see much improvement for ESAs situation. unsure.gif

(I hope my point is understandable)

Posted by: djellison May 23 2007, 08:15 PM

I see what you're saying - and you do have a point - but the difference is this.

You spend €1B on ExoMars and it crashes, you don't get anything

Spend €800M (my guess) on Netlander - and you get four chances. Try one - if it fails, learn from it, change some parameters, try a safer landing site - try again..and again...and again. Quadrouple the chance.

Not only that - but perhaps you have two Netlanders that work - you might find that one of those vehicles finds the PERFECT landing site for Exomars.

Yes - the feed forward from Netlander to Exomars is not great from a systems perspective - but nothing from the MPF blueprints ended up on MER either - nor Viking etc. It's about experience more than anything perhaps.

I'm MUCH more confident in MSL than I could ever be about ExoMars. The MSL EDL guys have done it three times already. They know the challenges, they understand the trades. I want to see the EU guys get that sort of experience before hitting something big like ExoMars.



Doug

Posted by: helvick May 23 2007, 08:45 PM

I am not convinced that ESA is being overly ambitious with the current ExoMars scope. The full Aurora plan to progress rapidly to sample return seems far too ambitious but I don't see any definite reason why a slightly bigger than MER design can't be landed by ESA with a high expectation of success.

Opting to use a MER\Pathfinder heritage vented airbag landing system seems reasonable to me. Sure they will be hitting the mass limit but they have the time to resolve that. MSL needs to do something dramatically different - it would need to be landing close to 2000kg if it were to use an airbag system, ExoMars will need to deal with ~600-700kg which is at most 30% more than MER.

Posted by: hendric May 23 2007, 09:53 PM

That's even assuming ExoMars can be done for €1B. I say there's at least an order of magnitude difference in the complexity between 4 immobile landers, and the ExoMars rover. I would bet a Mars bar on something more in the range of €3B, when you factor in instrument development and staffing science and engineering teams.

Posted by: djellison Jun 10 2007, 10:37 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6738585.stm

Vented bags get tested.

Posted by: Zvezdichko Jun 12 2007, 01:34 PM

Vented bags?What will happen if the rover lands upside down... I never liked the idea of vented bags..

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 12 2007, 02:38 PM

Will the cable with the chute be cut when reaching the ground or a few meters before (like the MERs) ?
In the first case, I guess the bags are supposed to be down at contact.

Posted by: djellison Jun 12 2007, 02:39 PM

The design is to not land upside down. MSL isn't going to land upside down for instance.

Doug

Posted by: mars_armer Jun 14 2007, 09:16 PM

In the early part of the Mars Pathfinder project, the assumption was that the first impact would always be on the base petal airbag, and the other airbags were just for secondary bounces. Special attention was to be paid to the base petal airbag.

Then the multi-body simulations came in, and they found that the first impact was equally likely in any direction, including nose down. The problem is that when the RAD rockets fire, any misalignment between the bridle the the center of mass of the lander will cause the lander to pitch over. (For MER, they added the transverse rockets to counteract horizontal velocity, but the lander orientation at landing could still be upside down.)

The difference with MSL is that the descent stage is actively controlled, and there is no "jerk" from RAD rockets.

Posted by: Geographer Jun 20 2007, 07:30 AM

What is the expected range in meters per day and overall for ExoMars?

Posted by: djellison Jun 20 2007, 08:26 AM

It'll be similar to MER - which means hugely dependant on terrain and power. Anything from 30 to 200m/sol

Doug

Posted by: vjkane Dec 17 2007, 05:00 PM

Space News has a nice article on the financing of ExoMars. It appears that the mission is in New Frontiers class territory plus. While the quoted price tag is $1.5B, a portion of that is because the dollar is so weak (a euro spent in Europe doesn't seem to buy $1.50 worth of stuff). However, the quoted price tag doesn't include the instruments (22 of them), so that probably brings the full price tag closer to what $1.5B would buy in the States.

Net of all this: The large price tags for missions we've seen elsewhere (for example Flagship missions to Jupiter or Saturn) are occurring for other bodies as the cheap easy stuff has already been done.

Posted by: vjkane Dec 17 2007, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Dec 17 2007, 05:00 PM) *
Space News has a nice article on the financing of ExoMars.


The url: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071217-busmon-exomars.html

Posted by: scalbers Dec 18 2007, 09:28 PM

And also covered on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7149500.stm

Posted by: nprev Dec 19 2007, 01:07 AM

Kind of risky to assume that MRO will still be available to serve as a comm relay in 2013 & beyond, though, isn't it? Does ESA have any sort of follow-on to Mars Express planned?

Posted by: vjkane Dec 19 2007, 01:08 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Dec 19 2007, 01:07 AM) *
Kind of risky to assume that MRO will still be available to serve as a comm relay in 2013 & beyond, though, isn't it? Does ESA have any sort of follow-on to Mars Express planned?


I believe that the mission now also includes an orbiter that will act both as a relay and a science platform.

Posted by: nprev Dec 19 2007, 06:55 PM

Really! Seems wise. Is this going to change the EDL concept significantly, or does this offload some of the risk from the vented-airbag schema? (Assuming here that the orbiter & rover are traveling together & going into orbit...or will ExoMars be jettisoned for landing prior to MOI?)

Posted by: Mariner9 Dec 19 2007, 07:40 PM

I'm not sure that there is an orbiter in the latest ExoMars proposal.

Data relay is central to the debate of the day right now in Mars exploration, or more specifically what will follow Mars Scout 2011.

Originally 2013 was going to be the Mars Science Orbiter, or MSO. Following on the heels of MRO and MSL, it is proof once again that NASA is falling in love with TLAs (three letter acronyms).

But recently Alan Stern started talking MSR (the TLA for Mars Sample Return), which would likely require that a Mars mission be dropped in the next decade. MSO is now a potential delete.

Which would leave an aging (or possibly dead) MRO for relay, and Mars Scout 2011. Any orbiter is now required to have relay equipment on board, supplied at no cost to the mission, so Mars Scout will have one. That relay probably would be sufficient (and likely to be operable in 2014 or 2015) to support ExoMars. The question is wheather NASA will consider that a reliable enough mechanism to supply relay for missions in 2016 and 2018.

Posted by: vjkane Dec 20 2007, 01:15 AM

QUOTE (Mariner9 @ Dec 19 2007, 07:40 PM) *
Which would leave an aging (or possibly dead) MRO for relay, and Mars Scout 2011. Any orbiter is now required to have relay equipment on board, supplied at no cost to the mission, so Mars Scout will have one. That relay probably would be sufficient (and likely to be operable in 2014 or 2015) to support ExoMars. The question is wheather NASA will consider that a reliable enough mechanism to supply relay for missions in 2016 and 2018.


The new SSB Planetary Science Program review report http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12070 , pg. 54-57 shows how the entire Mars program is up in the air. In general, I've been a big fan of Alan Stern, but here we may part company (not that he'll know). MSR is fraught with technical and budgetary risk. Betting your entire Mars program on being able to fly it on time is putting an unacceptable level of risk, in my opinion. We could end up with no Mars mission from the U.S. in the 2010's and no MSR in the 2020's. (MSR is at least two presidents and 6 congresses away).

In my opinion, I'd fly MSO in 2013 to support ExoMars, future missions, and to conduct some science. Then I'd fly two copies (probably two launch opportunities) of the Astrobiology Field Lab (AFL) so that we have both a choice of samples and redundancy if ASL fails or the site selection is skunked (like Spirit in Gusev). Then I'd target MSR surface mission about 2022 and the orbital pickup in 2024 or 2026. Skipping Scout missions and the network science to enable this is an acceptable tradeoff for me.

Posted by: djellison Dec 20 2007, 08:50 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Dec 20 2007, 01:15 AM) *
In my opinion, I'd fly MSO in 2013 to support ExoMars,


I wouldn't. There is no certainty that ExoMars will fly. Offer relay with available assets, sure, but don't spend many hundreds of millions of dollars to support a mission that might not fly, and if it doesn't, may well not work. There's being an international partner...and there's going out on a limb.

MSR may be expensive, but MSO and two AFL's don't come cheap either. There will be the '11 orbiter, MRO, MODY and MEX ( with decreasing likelyhood of still being active from left to right ) for ExoMars relay.

Doug

Posted by: monitorlizard Dec 21 2007, 08:58 AM

Flying MSO to do mostly relay and a little science wouldn't be worthwhile, IMO. But if you could do something like, say, fly an imaging SAR on MSO and have the SAR antenna do double duty as part of a high-capacity data relay system, then MSO becomes a much more attractive mission (for ExoMars, AFL, even a surface network). I believe Magellan was an example of being able to use a SAR antenna for multiple purposes.

Posted by: ustrax Jan 30 2008, 11:54 AM

QUOTE (Mariner9 @ Dec 19 2007, 07:40 PM) *
I'm not sure that there is an orbiter in the latest ExoMars proposal.


It is not... smile.gif
It is expected that MRO and their sucessors do the data relay work.
Another thing, it appears that the possible Russian participation is far from happening since Jorge Vago, ExoMars Project Scientist told me that the baseline points to an Ariane 5 ECA launcher...
http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/exomars-qna-with-jorge-vago.html...cool...and with some details I wasn't aware of...like this one:
"The Composite (Carrier + Descent Module) will arrive to Mars in late 2014.
It will go into a parking orbit and wait there approximately 1 year, until the atmospheric conditions are optimal for landing (sufficient atmospheric density and no danger of dust storms).
Then? The Composite will execute a manoeuvre at apogee to retarget the spacecraft for the entry trajectory. Two days later, the Carrier will separate the Descent Module, which will then enter the atmosphere."

One year in orbit?...doing what?...Man...forgot to ask about that... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: djellison Jan 30 2008, 12:10 PM

Skycrane AND Airbags AND an orbiter that gets thrown away AND a year long wait on orbit.

AND making the assumption that MRO/MEX/MODY will be in a position to offer relay, 8 years from now without providing any alternative of our own.

huh.gif

I really am sorry to sound so negative about Exomars...it just seems like the wrong way to be going - lots of decisions that seem to be inappropriate compromises to problems that should be engineered out of the equation. I really really don't want to see ESA spend this much money and get it wrong, and I think they are. Big Kudos to Ustrax for getting us some lovely juicy details!

Doug

Posted by: ustrax Jan 30 2008, 12:16 PM

AND...although I'm an optimistic one...did you see that there is something that I haven't read before?...A reference to 2016?... wink.gif

Kudos?...I'd rather have a beer paid in the nearest pub... tongue.gif

Posted by: Mariner9 Jan 30 2008, 03:10 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jan 30 2008, 04:10 AM) *
Skycrane AND Airbags AND an orbiter that gets thrown away AND a year long wait on orbit.


I don't think there is a Skycrane in the most recent ExoMars design. That word was used in the article, but I don't think it was an accurate term. The description given was of a rocket motor firing and stopping the lander 30 meters above the ground, then releasing the lander and having it drop the last 30 meters.

That is almost exactly how Pathfinder and MER landed. The Skycrane of MSL hovers over the ground and lowers the lander (gently, so they claim) to the surface.

But as for the rest of it.... I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.

A long, long time ago a lot of us were saying that this mission was too big a jump for ESA to make from Mars Express, and that 600 million Euros was a fantasy budget. They've since wised up about the budget, but that still leaves me wondering about the wisdom of trying to jump from "orbiter derived from Rosseta" to "a mission far grander than MER".

So far the mission has slipped from 2011 - 2013. I've gotta wonder if it will slip furthur. If it does, I hope it also gets a bit more modest in scope, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Posted by: djellison Jan 30 2008, 03:23 PM

" The last stage of the descent is performed with throttable liquid rocket engines which will compensate the horizontal wind component and stop the Descent Module in mid air, about 10 m from the ground. The Lander will then be dropped and the Descent Module backshell will fly away."

That's a liquid fueled, actively guided decent stage. Maybe it doesn't hover like the MSL decent stage (although 'stop in mid air' is a pretty accurate description of MSL) , but it's a lot more like MSL than the RAD's of the MER design.

Doug

Posted by: centsworth_II Jan 30 2008, 04:38 PM

I'm confused. Are we for or against the notion that Skycrane is a name for the decent
stage as opposed to just being the name of a maneuver performed by the decent stage.

Posted by: edstrick Jan 30 2008, 05:06 PM

Part of the "Skycrane" idea is lowering the lander to touchdown on a cable from the hovering crane.
The described system is more like a smart, capable, liquid fueled, horizontal velocity nulling MER backshell system than a true skycrane.

Posted by: djellison Jan 30 2008, 05:54 PM

As described, it's the MSL decent stage, without a winch. It will have to tick almost all the same engineering boxes required for the skycrane manouver. It's much much closer to MSL than MER. One could argue that MSL is just a smart, capable, liquid fueled, horizontal velocity nulling MER backshell system....with a winch. The moment you decide to come to a standstill, and intelligently throttle out the cross-terrain speed, you're basically building Viking/MPL/Phoenix etc

(the hardware is decent stage, the maneuver is skycrane, although even I say skycrane in error half the time biggrin.gif )

Posted by: monitorlizard Jan 31 2008, 01:06 PM

ExoMars is going through the same kind of teething pains that MSL did. Early in the planning stages, MSL was going to travel hundreds of kilometers across Mars, operating 24 hours a day, with a high degree of autonomy. It reminds me of that famous phrase "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, else, what's a Heaven for?"

Posted by: djellison Jan 31 2008, 01:12 PM

QUOTE (monitorlizard @ Jan 31 2008, 01:06 PM) *
Early in the planning stages, MSL was going to travel hundreds of kilometers across Mars, operating 24 hours a day


Really? Where did you read that? I've never seen MSL described as driving at night, or driving hundreds of KM.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jan 31 2008, 01:26 PM

I didn't say MSL would drive at night, I said it would operate 24 hours a day. With the RTG, the analytical instruments would have operated as well at night as during the day. However, that was in the early planning stages, I'm not sure what the current plans are.

Posted by: djellison Jan 31 2008, 02:35 PM

Even at UMSF, we've had explanations as to the likely operating schedule for MSL, and it's surprising similarity to MER ( do stuff, then charge )

People may have presumed ( as I did at first ) that an RTG means it's a 24 hour science party - but it isn't - and I don't think MSL was ever actually expected to be.

Doug

Posted by: ustrax Jan 31 2008, 04:06 PM

Oh Doug...You're gonna http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/exomars-update-week-special.html rolleyes.gif


You guys are all invited, I expect heavy artillery from this side... laugh.gif
Prepare your ammunitions!

EDITED: btw, I have posted today a http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/exomars-update-week-pasteur-instruments.html showing the instruments to be part of the Rover, for now...

Posted by: Mariner9 Jan 31 2008, 04:08 PM


I had been unable to read the linked article (damn that small font and leaving my reading glasses at home) yesterday. I did not realize just how complex their proposed braking system is.

It still is not quite the MSL skycrane design, but it is a lot closer than I had imagined.

I'll concede the point, and call it a 'skycranette'.

Posted by: djellison Jan 31 2008, 07:21 PM

Damn - I'm traveling at that time. I'l email you smile.gif

Thanks to Jorge for spending some weekend answering questions!!

Doug

Posted by: ustrax Feb 1 2008, 09:08 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jan 31 2008, 07:21 PM) *
Damn - I'm traveling at that time. I'l email you smile.gif

Thanks to Jorge for spending some weekend answering questions!!

Doug


Don't confound the hours...It's from 5PM to 6PM GMT, this http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/... smile.gif

Mail me your questions, I'll deliver them to the man, and yes, cool of him to accept the challenge, quite a pleasant man...

Posted by: ustrax Feb 2 2008, 04:41 PM

Guys...http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/exomars-update-week-live-qna-with-jorge.html is yours! smile.gif

EDITED: the man has entered with a great mood...not to waiste...
Jorge is asking http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/exomars-update-week-live-qna-with-jorge.html..are u guys sleeping?! blink.gif

Those who haven't been there...you don't know what http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/exomars-update-week-live-qna-with-jorge.html...

I'm converted...I'll be now an ExoMars chevalier... wink.gif

Posted by: ustrax Feb 4 2008, 06:40 PM

Silly, just silly the boycott...
ExoMars will be there, that's my new Ultreya...

Posted by: djellison Feb 4 2008, 07:33 PM

I just didn't have the time to get questions in before hand, and was stuck away from the 'net at the time.

Nice to see some good questions asked - I want to see the PDR before I really stake my claim. The top level questions ( MER size vehicle with MSL size payload - no relay capacity - the year long wait on orbit ) didn't get covered - but some good stuff did. I still don't think it's the right mission for ESA to be doing at the moment - I think it could spend that much money better elsewhere.

I don't think anyone's boycotting, don't be offended, I just think people still don't think of ExoMars as a real mission yet - I find it hard to - and until the minsters meeting later in the year - it is just a proposal and a study. That it will progress to a real mission is by no means certain.

Massive thanks to Jorge for answering questions!

Doug

Posted by: ustrax Feb 6 2008, 11:07 AM

Offended?! blink.gif
Man, you got me wrong, I wasn't saying people were boycotting here, man...almost all the guest came from here... ;-)
I was making reference to the fact of Jorge Vago, asked us for, please, telling our governments that there is this one really cool mission at ESA that requires their support and attention at the 2008 ESA Ministerial Conference.
This sounds to me me like these governments haven't been giving a special attention to this mission...That's the boycott I was referring to, knowing from other sources that some instruments are having hard times trying to reach somewhere...

In the meanwhile...here's a spacEurope (EDITED...) pseudo-exclusive... tongue.gif
ExoMars rover http://spaceurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/exomars-update-week-addenda-unseen.html smile.gif

Posted by: djellison Feb 6 2008, 11:35 AM

Carefull of using the word 'exclusive'
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?mission=ExoMars&keyword=+--%3E+Keyword&idf=+--%3E+ID&Ic=on&Vc=on&Ac=on&subm3=GO

smile.gif

Doug

Posted by: ustrax Feb 6 2008, 11:42 AM

Exclusive? Who used the word exclusive?... tongue.gif
I hadn't seen that yet...

EDITED: But mine as something exclusive regarding that one Doug...the drill was operating... wink.gif

Posted by: Tom Tamlyn Feb 10 2008, 04:31 AM

Apparently ExoMars http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7234809.stm.

TTT

Posted by: ngunn Feb 10 2008, 08:00 PM

QUOTE (Tom Tamlyn @ Feb 10 2008, 04:31 AM) *
Apparently ExoMars http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7234809.stm.

TTT


Sounds like 'ExtraMars' might fit.

Good news in that article about increased British commitment to ESA. Not before time.

Posted by: Stu Jul 7 2008, 01:56 PM

QUOTE (ngunn @ Feb 10 2008, 09:00 PM) *
Good news in that article about increased British commitment to ESA. Not before time.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7492497.stm

Here we go... (sigh)...

Posted by: spdf Jul 24 2008, 01:05 AM

I hope noone did ask this question before. Since it would be probably too late for MSL, would it be possible for ExoMars to carry the DS 2 penetrators to Mars? With as little as possible extra work and money. Or would be 12 extra kilos too much?

Posted by: djellison Jul 24 2008, 07:52 AM

12 kilos probably wouldn't be a cruise stage problem. HOWEVER - if Exomars enters orbit before deploying, then you've also got to de-orbit the DS2's, and err..

you've got to fund, design, test, build two DS2's....without any money.

Doug

Posted by: Marz Oct 3 2008, 05:39 PM

I wonder if sampling problems from Phoenix are going to necessitate a redesign of how the Pasteur drill on Exo must deliver samples? Could the Mole also encounter problems depending on the soil characteristics; it seems like dunes in Meridiani can be fluffy and fluid, while the soil at the poles is clumpy and cohesive?

Posted by: Stu Feb 1 2009, 02:00 PM

French propose downsizing ExoMars...

http://www.space.com/news/090130-sn-france-exomars-concerns.html

Surprised? Moi? sad.gif

Posted by: tedstryk Feb 1 2009, 02:33 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Feb 1 2009, 03:00 PM) *
French propose downsizing ExoMars...

http://www.space.com/news/090130-sn-france-exomars-concerns.html

Surprised? Moi? sad.gif


I don't think it is a bad idea if it means it will actually get built instead of always staying 7 or 8 years in the future.

Posted by: Stu Feb 1 2009, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (tedstryk @ Feb 1 2009, 02:33 PM) *
I don't think it is a bad idea if it means it will actually get built instead of always staying 7 or 8 years in the future.


Me neither, and it might well be the reality check the mission needs, but I just can't shake this gut feeling that it's never going to reach Mars. I don't like the feeling, and I desperately hope I'm wrong, but with this project rapidly taking on the shape of a political hot potato - or croissant wink.gif - and with the current financial situation, I fear ExoMars is already feeling the downdraught of circling vultures' wings on its solar panels.


Posted by: djellison Feb 1 2009, 03:35 PM

MER sized vehicle with an MSL sized payload in an untested landing system. I never have, and doubt I ever will like the concept of ExoMars unless it gets a significant architecture change.

Posted by: ngunn Feb 1 2009, 04:53 PM

That opens up an interesting question. How would knowledgeable members here go about that mission re-design? I'm sure a number of individual members will have good suggestions - maybe there could even be a collective effort leading to a UMSF shadow-proposal? (Or maybe ustrax will dust off his trusty crystal ball and just tell us how it's going to be? smile.gif )

Posted by: djellison Feb 1 2009, 06:00 PM

EU lead exobiological payload, US remote sensing instruments, using a deep-drill on a pallet lander delivered by an MSL derived descent stage launched on an Ariane 5.

OR

Scrap the whole thing and do netlander / metnet with a European orbiter.





Posted by: helvick Feb 1 2009, 07:10 PM

I'd go with Doug's second option - it has a higher likelihood of success, has some redundancy, builds capabilities not planned elsewhere and provides a practical stepping stone for ESA to consolidate actual lander experience for an extended period of time while working on developing more advanced capabilities like deep drilling, sample return, ballons\micro gliders or whatever your chosen next gen rocket science tech might be.

Do this right and they are in a strong position to get increased funding in future by having a proven track record, do it wrong and the distributed nature of ESA's funding and control will make it very hard to follow on with more advanced landers on Mars or elsewhere.

Posted by: SFJCody Feb 1 2009, 11:48 PM

Both these ideas are sound. I always wondered why things swung away from deep drills and netlanders and towards more rovers. Surely not a bandwagon jumping response to the success of MER?

Posted by: Mariner9 Feb 2 2009, 03:42 AM

I have always assumed that ESA moved away from the netlander concept and went with a rover because the US had flown MER. (I suspect that was what you were getting at.)


And as we have discussed on this board for a long time now, the mission has always suffered from either an overly optimistic low-ball budget, or an over-ambituous architecture, frequently both.

I'm glad to see the French pushing for some down-sizing. Better a modest mission that suceeds, versus a kick-ass mission that either fails or never even leaves the launch pad.

It is especially welcome now that the US has announced that it is interested in collaborating on the 2016 mission. I was afraid that the US technical contribution (roughly in the 400 million dollar range) might encourage the mission planners to keep thinking big. Or worse, even expand the scope.



Posted by: djellison Feb 2 2009, 08:45 AM

$400M. That's a nice big orbiter. EU provides a netlander like payload. Nice clean interfaces for ITAR. Brilliant. We need 400kg of paylod for 3x 100kg landers, 3 x Metnet landers, and the associated bolt-on-hardware.

Posted by: Mariner9 Feb 2 2009, 11:30 PM

I think that is a reasonable scenario. I would like to see something like that happen.

What worries me is that some people could see the $400 million and say "Great! Now we can do the big rover the way we wanted to all along, and add the telecommunications orbiter to it that we've been wanting."


Hopefully pressure from the French, and other sane heads, will prevail.


Posted by: vjkane Feb 3 2009, 05:20 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Feb 2 2009, 09:45 AM) *
$400M. That's a nice big orbiter. EU provides a netlander like payload. Nice clean interfaces for ITAR. Brilliant. We need 400kg of paylod for 3x 100kg landers, 3 x Metnet landers, and the associated bolt-on-hardware.

$400M is light for a Mars orbiter. MAVEN is ~$450M. Mars Science Orbiter is ~$1.1B. The estimated cost by NASA for a 4 node network mission is ~$1.2B (not including an orbiter). The capabilities of the landers wasn't specified, but the general idea is a seismic station, meteorology, heat flow, and high bandwidth (seismic data is voluminous). More cut rate versions of the stations could be done. The Finnish MetNet, for example, should be much cheaper (if they work), but they would lack the high bandwidth for high value seismometry.

The orbiter should have meteorology instruments and a wide angle camera for monitoring the atmosphere. It could be done for $400M, but I don't know if that would pay for an orbiter in a low orbit ideal for communications.

Posted by: Paolo May 9 2009, 08:01 PM

There is a nice article on ExoMars on the May issue of AIAA's http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/38%20-%20ExoMars_MAY2009_lr.pdf

Posted by: Stu Jun 16 2009, 05:58 AM

BBC reports "Europe's Mars mission scaled back"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8102086.stm


Posted by: tedstryk Jun 16 2009, 12:13 PM

A U.S. launch vehicle? Didn't see that one coming.

Posted by: Juramike Jun 16 2009, 01:28 PM

Bummer about the loss of seismic and meteorology package (Humboldt payload)

Joint NASA/ESA mission is a very good thing.

Drill, baby, drill!

Posted by: tedstryk Jun 16 2009, 04:06 PM

Humbolt did seem an odd package for a rover.

Posted by: helvick Jun 16 2009, 04:07 PM

I'm also disappointed by the descoping of Humboldt but I'm reading very positive things into this - I'm getting a much stronger impression that she's actually going to fly now.

Posted by: djellison Jun 16 2009, 06:38 PM

When is ESA going to learn that the mission is should be doing is Netlander. Grrrrr.

Posted by: hendric Jun 16 2009, 06:42 PM

Preaching to the choir, Doug. Maybe the Chinese or Indians will decide to do this. It's "relatively" easy with a great science return.

Posted by: Juramike Jun 16 2009, 07:10 PM

Hopefully the development work done on the Humbolt science package could be multiplied for a network system.

N(Humbolt) = Science^N

Posted by: AndyG Jun 17 2009, 07:56 AM

The future seismology side of things is covered in the BBC article.

QUOTE
"I'm absolutely confident we will see the elements of the Humboldt payload eventually deployed on Mars, but probably in a more dedicated circumstance," explained Professor Southwood. "For instance, instead of having one stationary station, is it not better if you are looking at an entire planet to have multiple stations?"


...bit of a no-brainer, but I suppose once the ESA have successfully proved a system that can deliver packages to the Martian surface, it will eventually follow.



Posted by: jsheff Jun 24 2009, 11:04 AM

It looks like they're serious about NASA/ESA cooperation, and are thinking about a joint launch of ExoMars and the Mars Science Orbiter in early 2016 on an Atlas 5:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090623-esa-mars-rover.html

- John Sheff
Cambridge, MA

Posted by: monitorlizard Jun 24 2009, 09:29 PM

An interesting article, but I don't quite see how the arrangement they describe is possible. The U.S. Mars Science Orbiter's projected funding is already so tight that a HiRISE-class imager has been dropped from the baseline payload. Carrying ExoMars in the same launch means a larger, more expensive rocket. It's a nice idea, but this would cost the U.S. more money, not save money (by combining U.S. and European missions) as I have previously read.

BTW, the article got one thing wrong. U.S.-built nuclear heaters are not called radioisotope thermoelectric generators, they're known as radioisotope heater units (RHUs).

Posted by: remcook Jun 25 2009, 07:05 AM

From what I remember, ESA is planning to pick up some of the orbiter's bill (some instruments I think) and NASA would pick up some of the bill for the launch window after it. But I could be wrong. Anyone else know more about this? I think launcher is Atlas 5...

Posted by: monitorlizard Jun 25 2009, 08:41 AM

The whole thing is a bit confusing to me. Europe needed U.S. involvement in ExoMars because it didn't have enough money to do the complete mission on its own. A U.S. launcher helps quite a bit. But where does ESA find the money for instruments to put on the American Mars Science Orbiter if it didn't have enough for all of ExoMars? I guess I can understand it a bit if international cooperation is the main reason for the arrangement, and not just completing ExoMars.

It might be helpful costwise if some non-U.S./non-ESA instruments were on the Mars Science Orbiter, but I haven't heard of any such arrangements.

Posted by: djellison Jun 25 2009, 08:50 AM

QUOTE (monitorlizard @ Jun 25 2009, 09:41 AM) *
But where does ESA find the money for instruments to put on the American Mars Science Orbiter if it didn't have enough for all of ExoMars?


Instruments don't tend to be centrally funded at ESA. Furthermore, as long as the instruments are cheaper than the LV - then ESA is 'up' on the deal.

Posted by: SFJCody Jun 30 2009, 06:20 PM

I'm sure most people have already seen this article, but just in case you haven't:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8124882.stm

Posted by: vjkane Jul 1 2009, 07:19 AM

QUOTE (AndyG @ Jun 17 2009, 07:56 AM) *
The future seismology side of things is covered in the BBC article.
...bit of a no-brainer, but I suppose once the ESA have successfully proved a system that can deliver packages to the Martian surface, it will eventually follow.

Don't be too sure it's a no-brainer. Mars network missions have been seriously proposed to 30 years and I've read at least a dozen proposals. Only mars sample return has been jilted more times.

Posted by: vjkane Jul 1 2009, 07:32 AM

QUOTE (monitorlizard @ Jun 24 2009, 09:29 PM) *
An interesting article, but I don't quite see how the arrangement they describe is possible. The U.S. Mars Science Orbiter's projected funding is already so tight that a HiRISE-class imager has been dropped from the baseline payload. Carrying ExoMars in the same launch means a larger, more expensive rocket. It's a nice idea, but this would cost the U.S. more money, not save money (by combining U.S. and European missions) as I have previously read.

NASA claims that it has about $700m for the 2016 opportunity (I don't see where they get that much and still meet other commitments, but that's another story). That was assumed to me enough for an orbiter that follows up on the methane discovery, possibly enough for meteorological studies, but not for a hi-rise class instrument and the ultrastable orbiter needed to use it. Adding the exomars orbiter will bump up the launcher cost by $100m(?) but adding hi-rise beefing up the orbiter which I think is about $300m.

I'm traveling so don't have access to all my data so the specific numbers are probably wrong but the ballpark is probably right.

Posted by: Mariner9 Jul 2 2009, 07:12 PM

I had read that there was a lot of concern about going too long between landed missions, for fear of loosing experience and skillsets that had built up during MER / MSL. This arrangement with ESA pushes out any future NASA lander by at least 2 years (which was probably going to happen anyway).

Has there been any talk about NASA/JPL having involvment in the ESA part of the mission, even in a technical advisary role, to help mitigate that problem?

Posted by: SteveM Jul 12 2009, 07:33 PM

Does anyone know what these two bullet points on the last page of NASA's http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/PSS.Jun.09.Mars.pdf imply for ExoMars?

– Accommodation of 1200kg ExoMars Decent Module Composite
represents an unacceptable level of technical risk for both Agencies

– Architecture options of acceptable risk are beyond either agency’s
budgets

They look pessimistic to me, but what do I know?

Steve M

Posted by: imipak Jul 25 2009, 05:56 PM

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8168954.stm.


(Edit: So the plan now seems to be:

2016: European orbiter, small static lander.
2018: ExoMars, plus "a slightly smaller rover in the class of the US Spirit and Opportunity vehicles"
2020: "a network of instrumented static landers." )

Posted by: Paolo Jul 25 2009, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (imipak @ Jul 25 2009, 07:56 PM) *
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8168954.stm.


if confirmed, that would be 9 years after the original 2009 target!

Posted by: climber Jul 25 2009, 06:42 PM

wacko.gif Let's remove all ExoMars topics from the data base mad.gif

Posted by: Enceladus75 Jul 25 2009, 06:59 PM

I think, at this stage, that it looks doubtful if ExoMars will ever get off the ground, as its schedule is slipping unacceptably and costs mushroom. sad.gif

What sort of static lander did ESA plan for Mars? Is this still going ahead?

Posted by: Fran Ontanaya Jul 25 2009, 07:59 PM

It makes sense that they wait for a methane map and a skycrane if ExoMars is suited for a 'follow the chemistry' mission. If they launched in 2016 without pinpointing a methane source, she could end spending two years roving to reach it.

Methane is such a game changer that not rethinking the next missions would be a risky strategy, I think.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 26 2009, 12:46 AM

There is a MEPAG meeting next week (starting July 29), which will have both U.S. and ESA presentations. Hopefully, several things will be clarified about current plans for future missions.

Any forum members going to attend?

Posted by: Paolo Jul 26 2009, 06:58 AM

I hate to say it, but the Mars architecture with ExoMars in 2018 makes sense...

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 27 2009, 04:47 AM

The new issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology (July 27, p. 36) has a particularly bleak article about ExoMars.
It's the first time I've seen an ESA official actually say that cancellation was a possibility. Of course, that's a last resort option, and many other things will be considered before it is. As I said before, I'm looking forward to the MEPAG meeting this week for more official news.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 28 2009, 02:30 AM

This is the quote from the Aviation Week article about ExoMars that I think will be of the most interest to forum members:

Jean-Jacques Dordain, the ESA director general, acknowledged at the Harwell inauguration that he is still in no position to say what ExoMars will look like or when it will be launched. Moreover, he hinted that if rapid agreement cannot be reached, the mission could be scrapped altogether. "A (final) proposal will be on the table by September, and I need to have a final decision by the end of the year," said Dordain, adding that the agency "can't continue spending money (on ExoMars) forever."

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 30 2009, 04:00 PM

There are several very interesting downloads of presentations from the current MEPAG meeting available at:

http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/meeting/jul-09/index.html

I know some forum readers are curious about the recently mentioned "ESA small lander" for the 2016 Mars orbiter mission. The ESA presentation reveals the following:

--the "small lander" is primarily an entry-descent-landing technology demonstrator designed to help ESA develop experience for later missions
--this will include heatshield instrumentation for critical measurements
--lander (using vented airbags) will only last a few sols on the surface, during which it will relay EDL data and a few atmospheric measurements and images
--weight will be less than 200 kg
--landing site will probably be Meridiani as it is considered the safest place to land on Mars

BTW, there is also a lot of info on the Mid-Range Rover NASA wants to launch on 2018 or 2020. Turns out it is larger than MER (but much smaller than MSL), with up to 40 kg science payload.

Posted by: stevesliva Jul 30 2009, 04:59 PM

Is the small lander more of a stepping stone towards a network science mission? It would seem to have less utility for roving missions.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jul 30 2009, 05:26 PM

I would guess it's the demonstrator for MetNet, which was to fly on Phobos-Grunt but could not be made ready in time. Or at least a similar mission. Like Mars Pathfinder, as you say it seems most useful for a network mission.

Phil

Posted by: Paolo Aug 6 2009, 09:51 AM

ExoMars news in Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090805/pdf/460675a.pdf

Posted by: Stu Aug 19 2009, 05:31 PM

I thought ExoMars was becoming a Europe/US mission? Sounds like it's now a Europe/Russia mission...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090819/sc_afp/spacerussiaeuropemars

huh.gif

Posted by: monitorlizard Oct 19 2009, 12:56 AM

There is updated information on the ESA/NASA 2016 orbiter/lander and 2018 ExoMars mission in the October 19 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology (you have to be a subscriber to access the article online). Most interesting is that the 2016 lander has grown from 200 kg (see post 267 in this thread) to 600 kg. This would allow a "large battery-powered science payload." ExoMars would basically stay the same as previously envisioned, with NASA supplying the launch vehicle and skycrane EDL system, and ESA supplying everything else. The battery-powered 2016 lander would have to do its science mission pretty quickly. I wonder if that might change to solar power in the next iteration of planning?

Posted by: djellison Oct 19 2009, 08:07 AM

I assume battery powered is just an inappropriate phrase to mean not RTG powered.

Posted by: Fran Ontanaya Oct 19 2009, 03:19 PM

Quoting Wikipedia, newer Li-ion cells can provide up to 130 Wh/kg. If the science beyond the 60th day or so is going to be mostly redundant, they may want to skip all the extras that deployable solar panels require.


Posted by: djellison Oct 19 2009, 03:25 PM

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:qtGkYS3sJYQJ:www.aec-able.com/corpinfo/Resources/ultraflex.pdf+solar+panel+watt+per+kg+spacecraft&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

We're looking at 140 Watts at 1AU. That's 65-ish-watts at Mars distance - so 1 kg of Solar Array would give you perhaps 360 Whrs PER SOL. (assuming 1 W turns into approx 6 Whrs over a 12 hr day)

I can't imagine any scenario other than a DS2 type mission where you would just take batteries and die when they run flat.


Posted by: vjkane Oct 19 2009, 04:24 PM

The *current* plan is for a battery powered engineering entry-descent-landing demonstration.

While I am the first to want a long-lived station, those instruments come with more complicated data storage, relay, communications, deployment, and probably most expensive of all, testing and validation requirements. Those requirements violate the goal for a minimal cost engineering validation. I presume that those are the issues that are keeping the system battery powered.


Posted by: djellison Oct 19 2009, 04:34 PM

But riding to the ground with 600kg of rover using Skycrane isn't an EDL demo opportunity.

Posted by: climber Oct 19 2009, 07:14 PM

"Sight". I'm wondering if mission design changes will be more than launch date changes or the other way around. "Sight".

Posted by: vjkane Oct 19 2009, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 19 2009, 04:34 PM) *
But riding to the ground with 600kg of rover using Skycrane isn't an EDL demo opportunity.

The 2016 will not use skycrane. It will use a an airbag system. This type of system and scale of lander would be very useful for putting down network science stations.

Only the 2018 ExoMars uses the skycrane. NASA will have invested several hundred million dollars in developing, validating, and flying this system. It will put a rover within a small landing area. Without this, ExoMars would probably be looking at MER sized landing areas, which severely limits the choice of sites.

Posted by: djellison Oct 19 2009, 08:11 PM

So a battery powered EDL tech demo in 2016, followed by an entirely unrelated landing in 2018.

What's the demo for, exactly. What future payloads are planned within the performance envelope of the tech test.

The entire ExoMars project is a mess. It needs properly ripping up and starting from the beginning again.

Since it's conception - it's not just stayed a static distance in the future like most doomed projects - it has accelerated further into the future and now, after 5 years, lies further away than it ever has before. http://twitpic.com/lacef




Posted by: vjkane Oct 19 2009, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 19 2009, 08:11 PM) *
So a battery powered EDL tech demo in 2016, followed by an entirely unrelated landing in 2018.

What's the demo for, exactly. What future payloads are planned within the performance envelope of the tech test.

From what I can gather, the member nations would not improve any plan that did not demonstrating entry and landing.

Doing a full scale system sized for ExoMars would be quite expensive, and would lack the precision landing system being developed for MSL in the skycrane system (there's also a lot of technology for guided entry, too). I believe that the ExoMars rover gains a lot by having a much wider selection of sites available by using the skycrane system.

I'm much less sold on the small EDL demonstration, although it would be useful for a future (2020?) network mission. If they would put a solar panel and a seismometer on the system, then I think it would be a big win. Putting bounds on seismic activity -- even for a few months (single string electronics) -- would be a big help in planning the eventual network mission.

Posted by: monitorlizard Oct 20 2009, 06:18 AM

A few months ago when the baseline was for a 2016 EDL demonstrator at 200 kg with a couple of instruments, it made sense and seemed to be a lowcost add-on to the 2016 orbiter. But now at 600 kg with a large science payload, it seems like a strain on the cost-cap for the 2016 and 2018 ExoMars missions. I'm thinking the added mass may be an attempt to put the Humboldt payload (that was eliminated from the ExoMars proper mission) back into the game by placing it on the 2016 lander. The battery power for the lander is confusing, unless quickly taken data is deemed acceptable as a way to keep costs down.

Posted by: remcook Oct 20 2009, 07:07 AM

Aaaargh.! This mission is changing every month for the last few years. It must drive the people involved completely mad. I hope they will actually build something at some point....

Posted by: mps Oct 20 2009, 07:08 AM

I suspect you're right about the Humboldt. Wasn't the ExoMars itself supposed to be mainly a technology demonstrator, before it was overloaded with instruments?

QUOTE (monitorlizard @ Oct 20 2009, 09:18 AM) *
The battery power for the lander is confusing, unless quickly taken data is deemed acceptable as a way to keep costs down.

Sound reasonable, as according to ESA, the lander’s operational life will be “days, or perhaps a couple of weeks, but certainly not months” (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/dordain-wins-backing-for-joint-mars-program-with-nasa.html) Just a nice way to avoid those terrible costly mission extensions. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: djellison Oct 20 2009, 07:45 AM

That story says

ESA EDL test 600kg battery only short life lander in 2016 launched on Atlas V.
THEN
ExoMars landed with Skycrane Atlas V launch in 2018

This makes no sense whatsoever to me. None. Exomars will have to be scrapped and started from scratch to justify a skycrane landing (ExoMars was about 200kg. MSL is more than trebble that)

And you could make this 600kg lander LIGHTER by giving it solar arrays and have a longer life. What thought process justified an Atlas V's launch, for a week of 600kg lander?

Furthermore - a 600kg lander is neither a test for a networked lander system (to heavy) nor appropriate for landing the orig Exo Mars.

At this point - I actually want the entire plan scrapped. It's utterly nonsensical. For the mass budget of the 2016 launch - you could do Netlander (which is what ESA should have been building since 2004)

Were 5 years into this plan - and they've just thrown away the two elements that appeared to make a tiny bit of sense and started again.

A complete and utter mess. An embarrassment. I'm clinging on to the hope that there's just a lot of lost-in-translation and bad reporting going on here.

Posted by: vjkane Oct 20 2009, 03:42 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 20 2009, 07:45 AM) *
This makes no sense whatsoever to me. None. Exomars will have to be scrapped and started from scratch to justify a skycrane landing (ExoMars was about 200kg. MSL is more than trebble that)

. . .

A complete and utter mess. An embarrassment. I'm clinging on to the hope that there's just a lot of lost-in-translation and bad reporting going on here.

I believe that the ExoMars landing system will have a similar landing footprint a MER (unguided, ballistic entry). None of the landing sites currently under consideration for MSL, if memory serves me right, could be done with the MER landing system (footprints includes lots of nasty terrain). If ExoMars uses the NASA system, then many interesting sites open up for exploration.

Also, if NASA flies its rover in 2018, then the two rovers will land together using the same skycrane. There's a lot of synergy between deep drilling (ExoMars) and surface studies (NASA) that are hard to fit onto a single rover.

As for still doing an ESA lander, I suspect but have no knowledge, that this is a quid pro quo to fund specific companies in specific nations. This would be along the lines of, "I promised to fund my portion of ExoMars if capabilities x and y were developed by companies in my nation." Alternatively, Europe has some deep seated need to have its own entry and landing technology, although they don't have the missions on the roadmap (beyond vague hand waving) right now to justify that.

I'll agree that this is a mess. Politics often produces sausages. Whether or not this sausage is palatable, I leave to the local constituents.

Posted by: djellison Oct 21 2009, 11:56 AM

http://www.marspages.eu/media/archive4/exomars/statusbericht/StatusberichtSep2009.pdf

Two rovers delivered to the same place?

I'm at the shaking-head-in-disbelief stage now.

Posted by: AndyG Oct 21 2009, 01:30 PM

Look on the bright side: they could take pictures of each other.

(Reads .pdf and discovers this is #1 on the list of benefits)

blink.gif

Andy

Posted by: Juramike Oct 21 2009, 02:01 PM

Hmm. I don't quite get it. Aside from just the neat-o pictures, the only scientific reason I see is for two rovers in the same spot is for doing subsurface RADAR bounce passes from one rover to another.

Couldn't they just do it from the landing platform to the rover?

(Saves an extra rover)

Posted by: cndwrld Oct 21 2009, 02:50 PM

I've got no inside information on this, but the plan seems reasonable to me. Not from a science perspective, but from a programmatic one. Its nice to dream up the perfect science mission, but without the funding to do it the thing sits in a drawer. Both programs were a bit advanced, with money sunk into them. To reduce costs, both an ESA and NASA goal, combining them might make sense. If you can get them into a single launch vehicle, you save a lot of money. To do that, you can't have two separate landing systems, as the weight and space requirements probably won't let it work. So the easier way is to modify an existing platform to drop both landers. Not optimal for science, perhaps. But it gets two landers on the surface. And what exactly is so terrible about having two at the same location? We've never done it before, and it opens up some intriguing possibilities. When we think about sending manned missions, no one seems to complain about sending two astronauts instead of one. And if the two are not overly complimentary, then we still have two rovers on the surface, two viable missions that didn't get cancelled or descoped due to cost concerns, which can wave 'adeu', and go their own ways. So in an era of tightening resources, I'm happy to see them finding ways to keep us moving forward.

Posted by: vjkane Oct 21 2009, 03:31 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 21 2009, 12:56 PM) *
http://www.marspages.eu/media/archive4/exomars/statusbericht/StatusberichtSep2009.pdf

Two rovers delivered to the same place?

I'm at the shaking-head-in-disbelief stage now.

It's not as dumb as it seems. ExoMars only has a drill for gathering samples, and the Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (MAX-C) (NASA's proposed mid-class rover) only has an arm. One studies the deep subsurface, and the other the surface.

In theory, you could combine the two, but I think you're pushing the bounds of what even could be put on MSL. The MAX-C also will cache samples for a future sample return, which turns out to require quite a complex (and big and heavy) set of mechanisms. No way you could put an arm, a deep drill, and the cacher (is that a word, yet?) on MSL and still have instruments. There has been some words to the effect that ESA and NASA should look into seeing if MAX-C could receive samples from the ExoMars drill.

Posted by: vjkane Oct 21 2009, 03:44 PM

The presentation that Doug links to has a nice summary of the plan. It does raise the question, "Consider the eventuality of a single rover in 2018, whether US or European. How would the science
mission change then ? How large would the rover need to be ?!"

Here's some speculation. I think that combining a big sample analysis suite a la MSL and ExoMars, a deep drill, an arm with a suite of instruments, and the cacher seems like way too much. However, the MAX-C instruments are all on the arm (and they are quite advanced, even though they are only contact instruments). The simplest idea would be to add the arm and its instruments to ExoMars. This, of course, pushes off the acquisition of samples.

If I were a betting man, my guess is that the roadmap will become trace gas orbiter in 2016, ExoMars enhanced in 2018, NASA's MAX-C in 2020, and perhaps a network mission in 2022.

Posted by: nprev Oct 22 2009, 12:31 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Oct 21 2009, 07:31 AM) *
There has been some words to the effect that ESA and NASA should look into seeing if MAX-C could receive samples from the ExoMars drill.


Don't like to hear that. The last thing needed right now is pressure to add more complexity of any sort.

Posted by: vjkane Oct 22 2009, 03:14 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 22 2009, 01:31 AM) *
Don't like to hear that. The last thing needed right now is pressure to add more complexity of any sort.

We're talking about a mission that won't fly for another 8 years. It's okay to ask what can be done.

Posted by: nprev Oct 22 2009, 03:49 AM

Mmm...VJ, I must very respectfully disagree. Given the rather turbulent history of this project to date, it seems prudent to me to define (and most of all confine) the mission with a fixed set of objectives & corresponding payload as soon as possible in order to favorably leverage this extra schedule.

Requirement creep has been the death of many, many projects in all disciplines. Locking down the design as early as possible would not only provide a clear budget path but also permit robust testing, thus improving its performance & enhancing mission assurance.

At this point, they really, really need to inspire confidence in their decision-makers, or it's all over.

(Apologies if this is OT, and we can certainly take this discussion elsewhere if needed!)

Posted by: climber Oct 22 2009, 05:09 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Oct 22 2009, 05:14 AM) *
We're talking about a mission that won't fly for another 8 years. It's okay to ask what can be done.

Theoriticaly, that leave them enough time to check out for right Titanium

Posted by: vjkane Oct 22 2009, 05:22 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 22 2009, 04:49 AM) *
Mmm...VJ, I must very respectfully disagree. Given the rather turbulent history of this project to date, it seems prudent to me to define (and most of all confine) the mission with a fixed set of objectives & corresponding payload as soon as possible in order to favorably leverage this extra schedule. ...

At this point, they really, really need to inspire confidence in their decision-makers, or it's all over.

Are we talking about the same mission? MSL needs to be held firmly to a single plan of record to launch within two years.

ExoMars and MAX-C will not launch until 2018, nine years from now. Normal definition, development, testing, and launch of a mission is 4 - 5 years. That suggests that there is more than enough time to revisit the mission.

While the ExoMars project wanted to start cutting metal, they had a fantasy plan because the desired capabilities and the budget did not match. As a result, ExoMars has suffered a four year slip and two major de-scopings. It now will be re-examined to see what makes sense now that there is an equally competent partner (NASA) that will bring several hundred to two billion dollars to the project. (My guess is that this will end up as a ESA rover with a drill with a NASA arm with instruments. Willing to bet beer on this one.)

So I disagree and wish we were co-located so that we can talk about this appropriately over beers.

I'd also be delighted to publish your thoughts on my blog if you care to send them. I'm seldom in doubt but often wrong.

Posted by: centsworth_II Oct 22 2009, 05:52 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Oct 22 2009, 12:22 AM) *
....Normal definition, development, testing, and launch of a mission is 4 - 5 years. That suggests that there is more than enough time to revisit the mission....

The MSL (Curiosity) science package was http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/111368/investigations_for_the_mars_science_laboratory/index.html, seven years before launch.

Posted by: vjkane Oct 22 2009, 06:38 AM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Oct 22 2009, 05:52 AM) *
The MSL (Curiosity) science package was http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/111368/investigations_for_the_mars_science_laboratory/index.html, seven years before launch.

True, but the instruments were selected five years before the planned launch this year (the additional two years come as a result of a schedule slip). I cannot recall a mission that froze its requirements nine years before the planned launch.

Based on watching missions go through development and experience slips, I think that more complex missions would benefit from longer development times such as four years in phase A for a total of 7 to 8 years in development. MSL definitely would have benefited from this. ExoMars worries me because its capabilities are cutting edge and ambitious and taken on by an organization that has not developed sophisticated entry, landing, and descent systems nor rover systems. (At least that I can recall.)

I think that both NASA and ESA need to look at the lessons of MSL and take a step back in terms of the ambitions of their mid to late 2010s rovers. As I've said in previous posts, I think that ExoMars and MAX-C will merge into a single 2018 rover with both agencies sharing their areas of expertise and flying what their budgets can support. I suspect that the highly complex sample caching system will not fly on that mission. It's big, heavy, and complicated.


Posted by: nprev Oct 22 2009, 06:42 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Oct 21 2009, 09:22 PM) *
Are we talking about the same mission? MSL needs to be held firmly to a single plan of record to launch within two years.


I thought we were; I was talking about ExoMars. smile.gif My viewpoint is that an extra 2-3 years above & beyond the normal development time could be a real gift, if managed properly. We seem to disagree on how that time should be used.

QUOTE
I'd also be delighted to publish your thoughts on my blog if you care to send them. I'm seldom in doubt but often wrong.


Sounds good, and thank you for the invitation. I'll buy the first round. laugh.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)