ExoMars rover launch axed over Russia tensions The European Space Agency (ESA) has slammed the brakes on its ExoMars rover, Rosalind Franklin. According to an ESA insider, the agency today agreed to suspend the mission at its ruling council meeting in Paris. Our long road to Mars on Rosalind Franklin @ESA_ExoMars just took another, sadly necessary, twist. We will work …
Perhaps if Roscosmos has already spent money on developing the rocket and lander for Rosalind Franklin, they might just consider donating said hardware, as a way of bringing Russia "back into the fold" as it were (and assuming the Ukraine/Russia conflict ends very soon).
Without the Russian "contribution" (as it was), integrating a new rocket/lander into this mission might be tricky...and probably rather expensive.
Plus I doubt ESA will get any refund from Roscosmos... :-(
Europe has been collecting oligarch yachts which should be enough to cover the expenses. Boris has been struggling hard to delay similar actions in the UK so his friends have time to move their wealth elsewhere. One of the many advantages of "taking back control".
I don't get the problem for the launcher. Ariane 5 is a successful one, and I think it can send a payload comparable to the one of a Proton rocket. Just build another one. The lander and the descent stage are more problematic. It will take time to replace, but we have enough companies in Europe able to do the job. Don't rely on Russia or collaborate with it as long as Putin Khuylo will be the dictator in place there.
If you want an Ariane 5 you have to buy one of the last 8 from someone who bought one of those launches for about €150M. You could try an Ariane 6. The first one of those could launch late this year so the 2024 Mars launch window remains an option if the entry/descent/landing system is ready. The planned cost of an Ariane 6 was €70M - before the fixed costs got divided by a smaller number of launches because purely commercial customers are likely to hire Falcon 9 for $52M.
@Flocke Kroes
"the 2024 Mars launch window remains an option if the entry/descent/landing system is ready."
This is Europe remember? It will take us until 2024 just to decide who is on the "committee" that will eventually get around to making a decision. Then add another couple of years of state infighting over 'the decision" as to who gets to do what, arguing over the inevitable budget increases, ad nauseam.
It would probably be quicker to walk.
The launcher is not the problem. Elon would _love_ the publicity of a Falcon Heavy launch to Mars, and I'm pretty sure he could make logistics problems for a 2024 launch "go away".
The problem is the lander and descent stage. Remember that Mars has a 50% success rate at passively repelling invaders.
Icon: Lots of fuel required (and oxidizer)
The last couple of NASA landings have gone well so the data seems to be there. "Dummy" landings on Mars are prohibitively expensive – it's not the landers themselves so much as the time and cost of getting them there.
There's no doubt that the ESA has the capability to do it all but it is financially much more constrained than NASA and Ariane has to earn its keep. Furthermore, cooperation in scientific missions with other space agencies is considered a sine qua non.
Firstly, the parachutes on the Rover still ripped on the final test. Despite that, the decision was that the Rover would likely reach the ground intact. Consider: all the aerodynamic modelling said it was fine in Earths atmosphere. And it still ripped. What do you think the modelling is worth in Mars atmosphere? So, spending all the money on a new EDM still leaves you with a probability of success well below a coin flip.
Secondly. ESA already *tried* to make its own Descent Module. Schiaparelli. It literally crashed and burned on Mars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiaparelli_EDM
That’s why they went to the Russians in the first place. What are the chances they can get something several times the size to work first time, in just two years? I know ESA very well. “Heritage” is everything, whether it actually worked or not. If ESA decide to make their own EDM (and I think they will), they will give the contract to TAS Italy, and it is going to be an almost carbon copy of Schiaparelli, with the minimal changes to fit the Rover. But even then, there’s just no way this is going in 2024, and even 2026 is insanely tight.
From years in the industry, that’s my assessment, and it’s the assessment of head of ESA too. He just needs to pretend it will launch in 2026, and then delay to 2028 as soon as ESA Ministerial agrees funding. which is what always happens. And in practice, with the delays that hit any project, this may well be 2030.
And thirdly, in that timeframe, technology will have moved on so much that the Rover will likely be rebuilt anyway. The main limitation on its science return is how fast it can travel which in turn is driven by actually the CPU processing time of its visual navigation system. It literally moves 10cm, then sits processing for minutes, and is limited by a 1 MIPS CPU plus teensy 15yr old FPGA. 10x the CPU power, 10x the distance travelled. So, it will be sensible to redesign the Rover for a 2030 launch as opposed to 2020.
Given that total redesign…..there isn’t even a sunk costs argument. The 1.3bn spent on the original program is just toast. They should be killing the old program and reconsidering from scratch what a new Exomars program should look like, and whether to launch at all. Would it not be more sensible to skip ahead of the launch phases, and offer a Mars Sample Return Rover instead into the NASA program?
Of course. I’m not saying they did the wrong thing. I’m simply pointing out that the chance of success is still quite low. It’s only one of the factors why I don’t think they should do this. But we all know perfectly well they absolutely *will* do it.Too embarrassing not to. Just, it’s purely political decision, not based on science at all.
I guess there'll be politics. ESA's paid once, so would need to agree budget for a redesign and relaunch. Not convinced Space-X is the answer either. Falcon Heavy doesn't seem that popular, and Starship hasn't reached orbit yet. Plus the job is to launch a Mars transfer ship, lander and rover, so a bit more complex than packing something into a standard payload bay and fairing. Plus I think the only time Musk's attempted to park anything at Mars, he missed.
But such is politics. Currently there seems to be a shortage of 'heavy' rockets, and replacements aren't ready, yet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
