[X] My Assistant

[Redstone]

Another interesting fact sheet on an MSL instrument. This one achieves remote sensing (up to 13 meters away) of elemental abundances by firing a laser and and performing spectrographic analysis of the resultant flash. Another part of the instrument is a Remote Micro Imager, which gives resolution approaching the MER MI, but at a range of 2 meters rather than 6 cm.

Apart from great opportunities for rapid science return, this instrument also has a significant coolness factor. I mean, a rover with a laser that zaps rocks! If that doesn't capture the public's imagination, I wonder what will?

Also: a new article on MSL and ChemCam from Astrobio.net. According to the article the Double and Delay option for MSL is still being considered. Anyone know when NASA will/must make a decision?

[cIclops]

Collaborations work best when all partners gain something. Space agencies look to gain a mixture of national prestige, enhancing science & technology, defense and commercial interests. As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover, and given the European priority to be independent of the US, there is no benefit to such a collaboration.

[djellison]

As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover,

We do? Since when

Before MER - JPL had Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder and Sojourner, and the failed MPL.

We've had Beagle 2.

Something like netlander is, imho a VITAL step towards attempting something like Exomars - if for little reason than to gain experience in operating a spacecraft on mars - and experience and data in the engineering challenges of getting there.

Doug

[cIclops]

As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover,

We do? Since when

Before MER - JPL had Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder and Sojourner, and the failed MPL.

We've had Beagle 2.

Something like netlander is, imho a VITAL step towards attempting something like Exomars - if for little reason than to gain experience in operating a spacecraft on mars - and experience and data in the engineering challenges of getting there.

Doug

Today the technology of landing on Mars is not exactly rocket science ... oh it is isn't it ha ha.

ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission. Look what NASA did with Viking in 1975 without any previous experience of landing or orbiting Mars. ESA can do it if they have the resources.

[dvandorn]

ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission.

Many of the missions you list weren't designed, managed or operated by ESA. Yes, there is a good amount of experience *worldwide* in various aspects of spacecraft design and operations, and even mission/program management. But we must remember that, according to stories I've heard, the NASA/JPL people told the Beagle 2 designers that American airbag-landing success was based on combining airbags with a terminal phase rocket brake, and gave Beagle 2 a far smaller chance of success than Pathfinder or the MERs because ESA decided they didn't need to bother with a rocket brake at the end of the descent.

And thus, Beagle hit and went splat.

The only way someone else's experience can benefit you is if you heed the other person's advice...

-the other Doug

Quick edit -- I really should say ESA decided they couldn't afford the weight of a terminal rocket brake, not that they couldn't be bothered to use one. I guess my disappointment over the somewhat-predictable failure of Beagle 2 still makes me a little bitter... *sigh*... DVD

[cIclops]

ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission.

Many of the missions you list weren't designed, managed or operated by ESA.

Those missions are listed in approximate order of ESA's contribution and involvement. From instruments only on Sojourner and MER, through major subsystems such as Huygens, to complete spacecraft in the case of Ulysses, Giotto, Rosetta, SMART-1 and Mars Express/Beagle 2. In addition ESA has designed, built, managed and operated several observatories, such as XMM, INTEGRAL, Cluster and Hipparcos. Well before ExoMars is launched ESA will also have constructed and launched Venus Express, COROT, Herschel and Planck, all very complex spacecraft.

Even though it has been done three times already by NASA, putting a rover on Mars is a natural next step for ESA and well within European capabilities. Now if only Beagle 2 can be located perhaps ExoMars can repair it

[gpurcell]

ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission.

Many of the missions you list weren't designed, managed or operated by ESA.

Those missions are listed in approximate order of ESA's contribution and involvement. From instruments only on Sojourner and MER, through major subsystems such as Huygens, to complete spacecraft in the case of Ulysses, Giotto, Rosetta, SMART-1 and Mars Express/Beagle 2. In addition ESA has designed, built, managed and operated several observatories, such as XMM, INTEGRAL, Cluster and Hipparcos. Well before ExoMars is launched ESA will also have constructed and launched Venus Express, COROT, Herschel and Planck, all very complex spacecraft.

Even though it has been done three times already by NASA, putting a rover on Mars is a natural next step for ESA and well within European capabilities. Now if only Beagle 2 can be located perhaps ExoMars can repair it

And how many of those complex missions involved EDL?

Sorry, but going from Huygens to a large rover on Mars is a huge leap.