ESA has announced Mars rover project

[adzel_3000]

The rover would have a drill to probe under the Martian surface. Launch timeframe is 2011.<br /><br />Info here...<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4423883.stm

 

[JonClarke]

This is great news. Another step forward. the probe would also have a comprehensive astrobiology package and a seismometer.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Very cool article.<br /><br />But what does ESA do differently than NASA that it will take 2 years to reach Mars as opposed to the NASA mission reaching Mars in 6 months?<br /><br />Is it just the positions of Earth and Mars relative to one another when they plan to launch? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The journey time to mars is around 6 months. However, the positions of Earth and Mars have to be right and this occurs once every 18 months. <br /><br />Edit: but the article does say leaving Earth June 2011, arriving Mars June 2013.<br /><br />If correct my guess would be that this mission might use solar electric propultion. This allows a large payload for a smaller about of fuel than chemical rockets, see SMART 1 for an example. This makes this mission even more interesting! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...my guess would be that this mission might use solar electric propultion."</font><br /><br />Or they could just be using a smaller conventional rocket, going slower and arriving at Mars on its Earth's second pass rather than its first. Do you really think that they would use a totaly new type of drive on such a substantial mission? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The time for a minimum energy Hofman transfer orbit from Earth to Mars is around 260 days.<br /><br />I can't see how you can get there any more efficiently, and take two years to do it, unless either gravitational assists or some form of high ISP propulsion is used.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Do you really think that they would use a totaly new type of drive on such a substantial mission?</font><br /><br />Yes I do. There are already plans to use solar electric propultion to get to merucy (see BepiColombo overview) so it will be a well tested technology by 2011.<br />

 

[centsworth_II]

Hmmmm... Could it just be an error in the article?<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=suggestions&Number=190803&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

If so it is ESAs error not the BBC, see the ESA article here: Europe goes back to Mars<br /><br /><font color="yellow">To be launched by a Soyuz Fregat 2b vehicle in June 2011 from ESA’s spaceport at Kourou in French Guiana the probe and Rover would arrive on the surface of Mars in June 2013 after a two year voyage. </font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[centsworth_II]

So, are we back to gravity assist? I still think electric drive is too new for such a grand mission. I don't know anything about rockets. What size will be needed to get NASA's MSL to mars {in a 6 month trip}? I expect the ESA rover will be about that size. How does that Soyuz Fregat 2b match up to what NASA will be using? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

There really is something to be said for the usefull contribution of a high-explosive when it comes to moving dirt. Since weight is at a premium, they probably won't want to send a penetrator to dig a hole they can visit, so why not plant some charges while there? The charges would have the added value of giving a look at what is beneath the surface. If they can send charges to the moon with humans, they ought to trust the robot with a bomb or two...

 

[adzel_3000]

Well, that would certainly give access to the subsurface. But it would be highly uncontrolled....if they were looking to analyze set strata or poke around for fragile sub-surface volatiles it might lead to some rather nonhomogeneous data. <br /><br />Still, it would be exciting! <br /><br />--A3K

 

[JonClarke]

There are several problems with explosive excavation:<br /><br />1) Distruption of the surface<br /><br />2) Difficulty of access (sleep loose crater sides)<br /><br />3) Organic contamination at the ppm level (suprisingly but true, I had a student once studying organics in rocks from a mine and we found traces of all sorts of on organics that had been forced into the rock by the explosion. Some were traces of plastic bags, detonators, others were from diesel fuel combustion).<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Organic contamination at the ppm level (suprisingly but true, I had a student once studying organics in rocks from a mine and we found traces of all sorts of on organics that had been forced into the rock by the explosion. </font><br /><br />Inorganic contamination would be widespread also, depending on the type of explosive being used. And its likely the surfaces would be contaminated with N-compounds and/or peroxides.<br /><br />Not a good idea if you want to do an analysis.<br /><br />But explosives can be good at excavating a nice hole or cracking a rock fissure if all you desire is a photo. Not much else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Darn. Didn't think about the mess. I wonder if there might not be a way to turn a disadvantage into a possible advantage. If there are martian bugs, then they might find the organics and nitrate residuals a welcome feast. Perhaps the rover could cover the hole from the sun by parking over the mini crater and observe the feeding frenzy?

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Perhaps the rover could cover the hole from the sun by parking over the mini crater and observe the feeding frenzy?"</font><br /><br />Better to observe a controlled feeding frenzy in a Viking-like experiment on board. You'll have to come up with a better excuse to blow things up on Mars.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

One possible use for explosives on a future rover mission would be shallow seismic experiments. A multi-barrelled motar could be used to fire explosive charges to a safe distance from the rover (several 100 m), which would pick up the seismic waves using on onboard seismometer and multiplely deployable geophone. Something similar was use on the moon on Apollo 16 - see http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo16/A16_Experiments_ASE.html . I am sure the resulting holes would be studied because of what they could tell about surface properties. Or the rovers could deploy the explosives by "hand" but this might be a bit too complex an operation. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>