Talk:Schiaparelli EDM

More detail on landing sequence would be useful

Eg deployment altitudes, speeds, times or the 2 different? parachutes. Duration of retrorocket firing etc. So can compare with other Mars landing sequences. - Rod57 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

[1] says "Schiaparelli will be activated a few hours before entering the atmosphere of Mars at an altitude of 122.5 km and a speed of 21 000 km per hour." "An aerodynamic heatshield will protect Schiaparelli from the severe heat flux and deceleration, so that at an altitude of about 11 km, when the parachure is deployed, it will be travelling at around 1650 km/h." ... "The module will first release the front heatshield and then the rear heatshield will also be jettisoned." "The liquid propulsion system will be activated to reduce the speed to about 15 km/h when it is 2m above the ground. At that moment the engines will the switched off and the lander will drop to the ground." - Rod57 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The graphic [2] shows parachute release with rear cover at 1.2 km altitude, 240 km/h speed.

then "thruster" rockets firing for 29 seconds (until at 2 m from ground)

The 2017 anomaly report says "Front Shield was jettisoned as planned 40s after parachute deployment"

15 s later at 14:46:19 the radar altimeter was turned on. [The rest happens early]

Back-shell separation at 14:46:49. (with the parachutes)

Switch-on of the Reaction Control System (RCS). - First RCS thruster operation was at 14:46:51 (no backshell avoidance manoeuvre)

Switch-off of the RCS 3 seconds later at 14:46:54. [Early] - Rod57 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass breakdown missing something

Maybe the parachute - unlikely to be in the 20kg for back shell, - but what else makes up the 577 kg total ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

We almost never brake down the mass into its components, only for the scientific payload or available propellant on an orbiter (service life). The quoted mass is "wet spacecraft", so it includes the propellant. The rest is listed in the table at "Specifications" section. To that we have to add its science payload (DREAMS suite), Doppler radar, a bunch of cameras and the batteries. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

payload

The section begins, “The current EDM surface payload ..." and then cites sources from 2011 and 2013. The word "current" there implies that there may be changes in future. But now that the craft has departed Earth, further changes to the payload would appear unlikely! Mathew5000 (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Schiaparelli EDM lander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026132118/http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ExoMars/SEMSZIAMS7F_0.html to http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ExoMars/SEMSZIAMS7F_0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Italy

There is an IP user that repeatedly entered that this is an Italian mission partnered with ESA and Roscosmos. Although for this project (ExoMars), Italy is the main investor/builder within ESA, it is not an "Italian" mission, not an Italian lander and not an Italian rover. Perhaps we can clarify in the article that Italy has provided a large percentage of the funding. Comments? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you BatteryIncluded. Italy is the promoter of the mission and the largest contributor to ExoMars. Most scientific experiments are involved Italian research institutes; Italy has the overall responsibility of the two missions; Italian companies have built almost all of the two probes. In fact, the lander Schiaparelli and the Trace Gas Orbiter were built in Turin (Italy) and in Italy will be built the rover.
Below the information on the istitutional website of the Piedmont Region (Italian language):
http://www.regione.piemonte.it/pinforma/innovazione/250-tanto-piemonte-nella-missione-exomars-per-marte.html
I think it's fair to mention it, here and in the general page about Exomars.
82.52.128.134 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Horribly out of date

Not only has the probe reached Mars, but the lander has separated and possibly crashed as of today. Launch section needs to reflect that. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Will Pittenger, Did you bother to read the introduction or the status section? BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The current article says (twice) that the Schiaparelli lander "will provide ESA and Roscomos with the technology for landing on the surface of Mars". If the ESA and Roscomos built the lander and it was ostensibly designed to land on the surface of Mars, doesn't that mean that they already have the technology? Perhaps it's supposed to say that the lander will test technology for landing on the surface of Mars (rather than provide technology). Does anyone know what these sentences are actually trying to convey? Kaldari (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

How about a "intended as a testbed for key technologies." BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No no! You must understand that ESA requires that engineering matters must be considered as a 'scientific research project'; otherwise known as 'experimental engineering'! --Damorbel (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors with the sources should list -

The total financial loss in man-hours of work and the cost of resources for the disaster of losing contact with the probe. This would be a good piece of final information for the article. This section should present the cold, hard facts. 50.111.42.136 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The lander was an experiment to generate data. The data was retrieved. There is no such thing as "financial loss". Put down the pitchforks until the rover landing in 2020. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Success?

"Nevertheless, the mission was declared a success because it had fulfilled its primary function of testing the landing system for the ExoMars 2020 surface platform." The mission proved that the landing system didn't work. ESA may define that as as a success but shoudl Wikipedia? It's like claiming a launch-pad explosion is a successful demonstration that a rocket system is unsafe. I will reword to a more neutral form. Stub Mandrel (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"Success" depends on what the goals of the project were as originally envisioned. Unfortunately, it appears this information (in any great detail) is currently lacking from the article. IMHO, if the goal of a rocket demonstration was to determine whether or not the rocket was unsafe, then an explosion does give you said determination. (If your goal was to launch a satellite, different story entirely). Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Found

It looks like the MRO found the lander, or rather, the crater it left behind: [3]. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

How much did the lander cost?

Nothing is listed regarding how much money this failure cost the European taxpayers. Would appreciate some info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:3D80:2CDA:D430:11F1:C48A (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tweets

BatteryIncluded: Being twitter the only available source for occurred events, even in realtime, are you sure it can be categorized as "non ecyclopedic"? GMRT has no official pages reporting those events, @esapoerations tweets are the only source. You also removed the detailed timeline, for no apparent reasons. It's a very important contribute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiaparelli_EDM_lander --Jumpjack2 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Most of that information is included as prose with inline citations to reliable sources (ESA). The Tweets may be useful is some cases as it happens, but Wikipedia is WP:Not news; and the use of exclamation signs is not useful either. If there is useful info missing in the article, feel free to add it as prose along with a reference. Extended tables with numerals of what was "meant to happen" to a 1/100 th second does not serve this article. I recommend we wait for the final engineering report and then add its essence to this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Humbolt Payload

The EDM was an late invention and surfaced together with the TGO. So why is the Humbolt payload mentioned here? When TGO and EDM were planned the Humboltpayload was already historic. --Stone (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

MER-B vs Opportunity

In a number of places MER-B is referred to. I think that the more common name "Opportunity" should be employed. Comments? Juan Riley (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Good call. The Wikipedia article for the rover itself calls it opportunity- makes sense that that's the appropriate name here as well. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

At least one editor put a lot of work into adding stuff and used MER-B. Thus time to give him a chance to answer in case he has a good argument. Juan Riley (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Info from the March 2017 anomaly report

Very interesting reading : Makes it sound like the pitch roll IMU (probably updating at 15 mS intervals) saturated at its limit of 150°/s but kept the saturation flag set for 1.1 to 1.3 seconds rather than the assumed 15 mS - GNC integrated the 150°/s rate for the whole time and came up with an attitude wrong by 165° (or 195° since the sign was also wrong) - This combined with the radar distance of 3.7 km made it seem to be about 3 km underground. Logic forced it into terminal descent mode. This would release the parachutes when it got below a specified height (+1.2 km, which it immediately thought it was), and fire the retrorockets until the energy of the craft was less than equivalent to coming down at 15km/hr at an altitude of just 2 metres when it would turn off the rockets to drop ~ 2 m to the ground. The 3 km negative altitude overwhelmed what ever vertical velocity it had so it cut the rockets while it was still 3.7 km up. (It successfully switched into ground mode and kept transmitting whilst it was in free fall.) At least they found out before ExoMars. - Rod57 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they recovered all the telemetry during landing and figured exactly what happened. That is why the demo lander mission was called a "success", and the ExoMars rover funding and development continued. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If failures are not admitted it leads to more failures. 75.161.66.123 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You are writing to Wikipedia, not ESA. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - no opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Schiaparelli EDM lander → Schiaparelli EDM – I'm simply going to put my opinion out there – describing an "Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module" as a "lander" is redundant. While DC Comics is a similar case where it basically means "Detective Comics Comics", the difference is that, as evidenced by the compliance with the Manual of Style's casing guidelines, "lander" isn't part of an official or any commonly recognisable name and is simply a descriptor intended to clarify the subject of the title. There is nothing else named "Schiaparelli EDM" and therefore this clarification isn't needed. It's the Schiaparelli Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM), and per guidelines on precision and conciseness, it doesn't need to be titled any other way. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Support I agree, a quick Google search does seem to suggest Schiaparelli EDM is a better name. The only (except for one) sources that use “lander” seems to be Wikipedia mirrors. And when sources do use “lander” they don’t use EDM at the same time. (WP:COMMON NAME?(sort of repeating @PhilipTerryGraham: said) OkayKenji (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.