I can tell you for a fact that the essence of the landing dynamics was made known to the public within about 6 hours of landing. The article by Schroeder et al was a synthesis of data from several different sources to simulate the last few unexplained bumps and wiggles in the DISR data. It is quite normal, and is why it is important to archive and document data well, for new analyses to be made on planetary data many years after it is acquired. The data have been on the NASA PDS and the ESA PSA since 2006, so you could have done it yourself some time ago if you were so impatient.

There will be a Exomars Science Team Meeting this month this is the number 5.

I have been told that there are currently no plans for the 2016 Exomars EDM lander to transmit telemetry during its descent. If true then I think that this would be an unwise decision. From what I have been told, whole point of the Exomars EDM lander is to prove ESA Entry Descent and Landing technology. If the lander was to fail 100m above the surface, much as alegedly happened to MPL in 1999, then no one would know that that was the exact moment that the landing failed.

I have also been told that the Exomars EDM lander will have no solar panel and so is expected to only transmit data for 3 days on the surface of Mars. The consensus amongst the people that I talk to is that a solar panel would be a good idea.

I can't remember but I know I read that the lesson learned from Beagel was that communication during decent is very necessary.

That lesson was learned by Beagle 2, CoNTour, and Mars Polar Lander.

Not transmitting during EDL for the tech demonstrator is utterly idiotic.

Let's see: An EDM mission with:

1. No EDL comm.

2. No solar power or other long-lived source.

3. No ability to conduct endurance testing of surface mobility technology & instrumentation.

Not to be too critical, but if if the objective is merely to demonstrate the ability to hit Mars with something I can offer some MUCH less expensive design solutions than a rover.

I believe this is just the stationary lander, not the rover having these shortcomings.
Even so, I'm getting serious flashbacks of the last European Mars landing attempt....

for a pure EDL demonstration mission with limited science, 2 or 3 are not limitations. 1 surely is

According to source from CSO (Czech Space Office), EDM will be communicating during EDL phase with TGO and possibly another available orbiters.

I'm just sayin' it's a terrible waste of a great opportunity. Understand the perils of requirement creep all too well, but going too far the other way begins to jeopardize the system's utility and therefore funding justification as well. There's always a sweet spot (and, yes, it's admittedly hard to find.)

There's already a low-cost, off-the-shelf EDL device suitable for that kind of mission.

Yep. Just need a MUCH bigger parachute...

I would like the Exomars EDM lander to be equipped with a seismometer. Insight is being launched at the same time and equipping a separate lander with a seismometer would allow the location of Mars quakes to be determined.

time for the admins to move their own posts to the Kitchen Junk Drawer topic?

PaulM - for an operation period of a few days that is not feasible. Also, even for a longer mission, this landing system does not guarantee any kind of useful coupling to the ground - so any movements may be caused by wind or vibration (i.e moving an antenna) rather than seismic activity. So good idea but not for this mission.

Phil

The ExoMars program was originally conceived as a technology development program that morphed into two science missions plus this technology lander. I don't know if ESA has plans to reuse the EDL lander for missions like Inspire, or if this has just hung on as part of the funding/spending balancing act that ESA programs have to do.

Anyone know if the Inspire mission proposes to reuse this design?

The whole thing on this technical mission was to aquire the technical abilities to land on another planet and use this knowledge for later missions.
The EDL design of 2016 together with alot of enineering help will be handed over to Russia to built the 2018 Lander.
This is what the Russians get for the two Protons they give for the project. In the end they will be able to soft land on Mars on their own.

The US are very restrictive on exacly this knowlege. Even after NASA and ESA cooperate in ExoMars and a NASA facility made some tests on the reentry on Mars it was not possible to get the data directly from the US. This makes it very clear that landing abilities have to be aquired by ESA itself.

It is very unclear on how long the lander will live. The ESA only lander (before Roscosmos joined) was living a few days on batteries only, no solar panels. This was done save money for operations. There was no technical reason to do that but EGU 2012 there was a meeting and there a ESA representative said that there is no money for operating a long lived lander. This did also not chnange after NASA joined the project or NASA lft the project.

When the Russians joined possibilities for the 2016 lander were discussed like a weather station or other long living things. This was anounced to be powered by a radio thermal generator from Russia. After some time there was in the news an anouncement that the export regulations make a so short notice export impossible. A russian scientist told me that he thinks they are most likely not able to procure a RTG until the 2016 launch.

The landing platform of the 2018 rover is still in planning and there is also a possible payload. The chance that there will be a lot of mass available there is unkown to me. But if Russia wants to built something and mass is availabe we will have a chance for a seismometer or weatherstaion.

Most things are still in planning stage and have not even reached the ExoMars community itself so lets wait for the ESWT5 next week for a update on the mission.

Directly from TGO site:

After separation, the Orbiter will monitor the UHF transmission from the EDM from its coasting to Mars till its landing. A NASA Relay Orbiter will act as a data relay for the EDM during its surface operations. Furthermore, ground-based communication arrays will also track the UHF signal during the entry, descent and landing phases.

last updated
04 Sep 2012

Same information is in last report from 22.1.2013 (which isn't available for general public).

It is now confirmed that ESA will go with one Russian built EDL system for the Exomars rover for a mission in 2018.

ESA press release

Well, I suppose that's the end of Exomars then...

Not quite. This only affects the 2018 rover mission. The TGO orbiter and EDL demo,
assuming their Proton launch goes as planned in Jan 2016, have been, and are being, developed
wholly within ESA. I am not aware of any major hurdles or question marks
regarding that part of the Exomars project (apart from meeting the Jan 2016 deadline, that is).

EDM Structural Model tested at ESTEC
http://exploration.esa.int/science-e/www/o...fobjectid=51636

Good news from the newest ESA's bulletin:

The EDM will also include a camera.

it's not really new...
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=193748

"The entry, descent and landing demonstrator module that will fly on the 2016 ExoMars mission has been named 'Schiaparelli' in honour of the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, who famously mapped the Red Planet's surface features in the 19th century."

http://exploration.esa.int/mars/53145-exom...d-schiaparelli/

First I've heard about a Meridiani landing site! Presumably chosen for the flatness of the terrain, given that its a pure EDL test?

This has been decided for a while. Here are a couple of links.


http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr507.pdf

http://www.planetaryprobe.org/sessionfiles...rview-Paper.pdf

Phil

schiaparelli good name

some links to reconstructed maps of his , for those interested
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/LGGC-...feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/-vloI...feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/o0PEn...feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/leM1Q...feat=directlink

As an Italian, I am proud of the name choice; however, I didn't find any decent image nor details about Schiaparelli lander... Quite strange for a mission which should be launched only 3 years from now!

a nice model was exposed at this year's Paris Air Show
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9228922@N03/9...157634443984911
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9228922@N03/9...157634443984911

A map (rather poor resolution) copied & enlarged from the latter of those papers linked by Phil Stooke, names some familiar features located just inside or at the fringe of the landing ellipse(s). Maybe means not much in real life, but some interesting possibilities do arise in mind...

While an actual traffic jam in Meridiani is not likely, it's admittedly fun to imagine a future in which it were a problem

Thanks Paolo! It seems a "small Viking" with a collapsible bottom instead of landing foots...

and from Italian to Italian, I am curious to see how non-Italians are going to twist the pronunciation of "Schiaparelli"...
hint for non-Italians: "chi" is to be pronounced like "key"

Found this pronunciation on the internet, accurate? LINK

accurate enough!

Call for ExoMars 2018 Landing Site Selection

The landing site criteria read pretty much like a description of Mawrth Vallis.

Mawrth looked like a great site until Dawn Sumner pointed out at the last MSL site workshop that it was mostly ejecta from the big crater just to the west of the MSL ellipse. The geological context of any outcrop might never be understood. Mawrth plummeted in the ranking after that. There are other interesting sites 'upstream' from the MSL site which might be better.

Phil

Certainly that particular MSL spot would not do. The Exomars ellipse will be a lot longer for a start.

Now that Curiosity has provided a glimpse of a smallish lake environment, I'd like to expand this to what was possibly once a sea or ocean environment, perhaps Hellas or somewhere near the putative shore of the northern ocean (seems like there was a neat publication describing a delta region there a few years ago). Probably the latter would provide the greatest chance of encountering macroscopic organic residues (a bit of creative paraphrasing), if they exist anywhere. Of course, I'm a big fan of geology alone, which is the most likely outcome.

Hellas appears to be depleted in hydrated minerals -- at least, everything except its northern outer flanks. (As per the map of hydrated materials generated from MEX data.) I'd have to guess that the impact that created Hellas occurred after the height of Mars' warm, wet period. While there is volcanic activity and small-scale river and stream formation observed in the northern ramparts of the Hellas basin, very little is seen in the inner walls and floor.

And that's too bad, since as a very low point on Mars the atmospheric pressure on the floor of Hellas is higher than at most locations on Mars, which would make it easier to land a heavier vehicle there (more potential parachute braking effectiveness). As an impact basin, as well, most of the original materials of the Hellas basin floor would consist of impact melt, from which a lot of work would have to be done to sort out the nature of the original rocks of the target area. (Impact melt reflects the total composition of all of the units melted, so it's a rather big job to sort out what went into making up the melts. Lunar scientists are still trying to sort out the original Imbrium target rocks based on the rather basaltic impact melt obtained in Apollo samples from the Fra Mauro formation...)

-the other Doug

I good also an invitation and I would not go to the site older than 3.6 Ga.
ExoMars searches for extant not extinct life.
A hydrothermal vulcanic region is the only point which makes sense for active biota.

The clay lake bed had its chance and it is empty and dead.
Biology needs change (new materials to work on) and energy source.
The clay lay there for 3.000.000.000 years even if there was enough
material to life and create energy from this source does not last 3Ga.

I don't yet fully understand, how the science goals match with the planetary protection constraints (subsection 4.1 No Access to “Mars Special Regions” in the User's Manual).

Looking into this further, I find myself leaning rather strongly towards a site near one of the delta features on the putative shore of the northern ocean. This paper (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232762372_Ancient_ocean_on_Mars_supported_by_global_distribution_of_deltas_and_v
alleys/file/32bfe511e3ed316b45.pdf), extensively discussed in this thread (http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6645&st=0) makes a strong case for the shoreline, and highlights many of the deltas on that shoreline (and convincingly shows that the deltas lie on a similar level as compared with deltas entering closed basins elsewhere). Taking estimated polar wander into account (if feasible that far back), a landing site near one of the more southerly deltas seems like just about the best target I can imagine. A nearly-as-good alternative might be remnant hydrothermal vent on the ocean floor, but probably that would lack the sedimentary record which which would be of real interest.

Admin note: Let's be wary of Forum rule 1.3 in these discussions. We don't want to drift into area that would require any further action. Thanks all for your support.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=boardrules

It is roughly the same story like MSL09. The rover is to dirty and the descent stage too. They are at a 300 to 3000 spores per square meter level. For special regions 0.03 spores per square meter are the maximum allowed. So neither part is allowed to end up in a special region. Landing in a nice cosy war wet place would violate the COSPAR Planetary Protection criteria.

The Drill and the whole Ultra Clean Zone which contain the Sample Preparation and Distribution system (SPDS) and some of the instruments is encapsulated and clean to the 0.03 spores per square meter level. So the drill is allowed to enter a special region and the SPDS together with the instruments (MOMA, Raman and MirOmega) are allowed to search for extinct and extant life in the sample.

So ExoMars is allowed to drill into a special region but not allowed to land in one or to drive into one.