Talk:ExoMars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Launch date decision

• 2011 seems more and more unlikely. Decision on launch date should be taken early 2007 at the end of the current phase of work. So should be 2013 or even 2015 if decision was taken to switch back to Ariane 5. A pity since performance wise 2011 is much more favorable. :( Hektor 08:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The main text currently says that the delay from 2011 to 2013 will not significantly delay the arrival of the rover on Mars, while my understanding is that there will be a delay of almost two years. If I'm wrong, please say so on here, otherwise I will change the main text. Chrislintott 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this is getting worse, launch in 2015 being more and more likely as announced this week by French weekly Air & Cosmos. Hektor 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Futher delay decreases the payload to an extant that a mission with science output is simply impossible. The rover payload drops well below 6kg for a sojus launcher, wich is less than the summ of mass of the two biggest instruments on board. Although I have a good contact to ESTEC the rumor of 2015 has not reached me jet. Even on a payload review mid of february this was never a point.--Stone 08:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The payload is decreased, because the trajectory becomes less favourable, this will become better in 2017 or 2019 again. --Stone 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The luncher debate and therefor no clear picture of the mass of the mission is the bigger challenge for the planing of instruments.-Stone 10:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"...will not now launch until 2016 because of the high cost of the project." BBC News - 17 October 2008. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Payload

As the advices for the 6, 12.5 and 16.5 kg payload are underway a decision will take place end of this month which of the instruments are part of which scenario. --Stone 13:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

changing the name

Humboldt payload was previously known as the GEP (Geophysical and Environmental) payload, So how about changing the lander segment of the mission. it makes more sence to keep the name up to date as well.[1] and imn talking about the GEP (Geophysical and Environmental) payload thats in bold. Nrpf22pr (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Humboldt/ NASA

Just read an article that says Humboldt is being dropped- also NASA is now on board and will be providing the launcher the carrier spacecraft, and the orbiter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8102086.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.44.231 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ExoMars rover0885.jpg

Image:ExoMars rover0885.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ESA Mars Science Conference

At the conference some news from the instruments were presented!-Stone 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Italian elections

Due to the shift in italian space politics after the election of S. Berlusconi towards national space program, the upgrade of the finacle budget to 1.2 billion euro needed for the extended Exomars mission including Humbolt payload and the Ariane 5 launcher, is highly unlikely. Due to this fact a launch in 2016 with a not so enhanced Exomars mission, which was never planed to be a science mission but a technology demonstraing mission, is likely. The chance that the rover team which is located at TAS-Italy looses its contract, because Italy is not funding the Exomars mission with enough money that it covers the work of TAS-I is a possible consequence. The conference in November will give the answers.--Stone (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Partnering with NASA & 2018 launch

The BBC News published today that the agreement with NASA is extensive. The two organisations believe they can achieve far more by combining their expertise and budgets. For this mission, the American space agency will provide the launcher (Atlas V rocket), the carrier spacecraft, an orbiter and the "sky crane" landing system. The colaboration comes with a downside: Launch will now be on 2018: [2] BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see what journalists make from a plan which was circulated as a discussion basis for a joint mars mission concept for ESA and NASA. The Plymouth converence in late June between ESA and NASA yielded no offical press release and therefore this is a good speculation. The NASA will take several months before there will be a decission on that topic. The biggest problem is the new head of NASA and president Obama have not declared what the future plans for NASA are. The moon, mars or human space flight but for all three there is not enough money. I wait for the ministerial meeting in autumn and than for a written contract for a joint mission between ESA and NASA even after that the mission launch date is not 100% sure. --Stone (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the article should reflect better the fact that these are plans still in the conceptual phase and that no official press release has been made on the collaboration details. However, the ExoMars homepage has not been updated since January 2007 [3] so it is helpful to delete "old news" and include new ones. Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The [NASA Briefing Charts: Mars Exploration Program Status Planetary Sciences Subcommittee of NAC] shows what to think from partners like NASA: Recommended options to consider that could reduce cost and risk to acceptable levels, such as spreading ExoMars elements across multiple opportunities, or a NASA-led orbiter in 2016 followed by the lander(s) in later opportunities. Get Exomars out of the way and than use the leftovers for later missions. And most important for ESA is: Reduce US portion of Mars-16/18/20 missions Which means let ESA pay, but together with the above statment it gives a good view on the future of Astrobiology Field Laboratory and ExoMars. --Stone (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The change to Roskosmos Proton is absolute new to me. The plan I hear from ESA people is still a cooperation with Nasa and a share of rockets in 2016 and 2018 for two missions. But today I might hear a talk by J. Vargo on the topic.--Stone (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Another update, this one from a German contractor:

"ESA's ExoMars mission has recently been updated. According to the current plan, in 2016 ESA wants to land on the surface of Mars with a landing capsule and carry out scientific experiments in an independent mission. At the same time, an orbiter will circle Mars to ensure communication with Earth. The orbiter will also be used by NASA. Under NASA's lead, a European rover with a drill will then land on Mars to examine the planetary surface in 2018." Source:[4].

I wonder if the static lander & orbiter (2016) will be launched by the Proton rocket and the rover (2018) with the Atlas? (--BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This Oct. 19, 2009 article states that both proposed ExoMars missions (the 2016 lander & orbiter and the 2018 rover) will be launched with NASA's Atlas V rockets: [5]

"ESA would provide the EDLS, the lander and orbiter for the 2016 flight, and NASA would furnish launch on an Atlas V 411 booster. The EDLS would be designed for a soft landing and the lander would be big enough - 600 kilograms (1,300 pounds) - to house a large battery-powered science payload. The orbiter would carry a NASA payload and be equipped with data relays that would serve both the 2016 and 2018 missions. For the 2018 flight, Europe would supply a rover equipped with a deep drilling system along with a fixed exobiology payload. NASA would furnish the EDLS - equipped with a sky-crane touchdown system developed for other Mars missions - launch on an Atlas V 551 rocket, and possibly a second rover as well."

If there was actually an agreement "signed" with Russia for a Proton rocket, what happened with it? --BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just updated the article: the deal signed with Russia is for backup launchers. NASA's Atlas V are the main. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mars Joint Exploration Initiative

Since the Mars Joint Exploration Initiative was just signed and an ESA orbiter is included for 2016, i wonder if NASA will scrap the plans for the 2016 Mars Science Orbiter? After all, this Mars exploration colaboration is meant to eliminate duplication and pool their resources. Thank you for any new reference to the status of this NASA orbiter, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Downsized ExoMars-rover?

Before the colaboration with NASA was formalized, it was proposed to descope and downsize the ExoMars rover in order to meet the mass limitation for launch along the TGM orbiter, however, now that NASA is onboard and the mission will use 2 rockets to lift all mission components, I believe that the proposed ExoMars rover downsizing no longer applies. It would be nice to find a reference to this effect. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: The reconfigured ExoMars programme will be formally presented to ESA Council at its December 2009 meeting. source:[6]

Note in the ref. above that that the 2016 static lander is described as "short-lived" so i doubt it will become part of the MetNet meteorological network. By the way, where did you read it would be a part of MetNet? Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The lander is planed without solar panels! One important thing to mention is the absence of a seismometer on the platform and that this thing is to demostrate landing capabilities. No science necessary to keep the thing ceap.--Stone (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The payload composition I am aware of is without Urey and the Lifemarkerchip and without several other instruments, I look for a document confirming that.--Stone (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MEPAG from June [[7]] only gives XRD, MOMA, RAMAN, WISDOM and the PanCam as payload. This is the baseline I also know.--Stone (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My question is if the descoping still stands even after the colaboration agreement with NASA in October 2009. It looks like we have to wait for the next status report in December 2009. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Humbolt payload will need solar arrays and the baseline for that mission is upto now only to use batteries. So the seismometer nad the weather station will most likely not be part of the mission. --Stone (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Its all about money there is no chance that the rover will get more complex. Every instruments adds millions of euro for integration and testing. --Stone (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It will also be usefull to pay attention if the lander's Humboldt payload is being reinstated, or if it will be a new conception.--BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At the Frascatti meeting on Methane on mars there was a talk on the future missions and on Exomars. The point there was that the EDL demonstrator payload has to be small and has to die fast due to the budget restrictions. A 5 day living meterological station or seismometer does not make much sense. The Exomars payload will be a place for much fun in the next half year.--Stone (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The ESA Council have now green-lighted the new program: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMIH8AK73G_index_0.html --AndersFeder (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. I also noticed that the ExoMars home page has been updated with tons of new info: [8] The Rover payload (Pasteur suite) has not been downsized. It will carry 7 instruments: [9]. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Main image

This image, File:Exomars.24.10 M.jpg, has been nominated for deletion due to it being non-free. If you disagree please discuss at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Exomars.24.10_M.jpg. ChiZeroOne (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lander

New info on the lander: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/12/landing-on-mars-in-2016.shtml

Bad news

BBC:Difficult decisions ahead on Mars just looks looks really bad, but together with the Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 report and the talk of Steve Squyres at the LPSC I could not imagine how to get a mission at all. From the report:

• Mars sample return is top science priority
• MAX-C is not allowed to cost more than 2.5 G$ (better cancel it than pay more)
• Venus Flagship mission might be within the cost cap

From JPL

• MAX-C single rover costs 2.5 G$
• Most expensive changes are due to implement second rover

from ESA

• most likely there is no money to change the already developed ExoMars mission
• inability to fight NASA by normal political ways, for example to stop supporting ISS or eliminate all instruments from the Trace Gas Orbiter or develop a ITAR free satellite business.

I would like to be present at the coming negotiations between NASA and ESA.--Stone (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that ESA already has a backup launcher agreement signed with Russia, so If NASA can't deliver its promise of 2 rockets and the MAX-C rover, it is very likely that ESA will simply continue with its original plan to launch ExoMars alone. Do you want to mention Squyres' assessment in the article?BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)