tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post8847879454728742295..comments2024-01-03T20:28:17.727-08:00Comments on Future Planetary Exploration: Merging 2018 Rover Missions – Part 2Van Kanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14227978868817989527noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-20362273110049768242011-08-01T08:56:37.657-07:002011-08-01T08:56:37.657-07:00I think that the ExoMars-C Rover (which seems to b...I think that the ExoMars-C Rover (which seems to be its new name) will be an exciting mission. Also, I think that, for budgetary reasons, this mission will be delayed to the year 2020 (even if the Mars TG Orbiter does meet its 2016 launch date). The Rover delay may not be all bad, however. As the MSL Curie Rover 2-year delay has made for a better-prepared mission, so I think that extra time in Phase A and Phase B for the ExoMars-C Rover will help. The extra time spent in early intrument detailed design, and Rover design, should help bring the Rover in on-time and on-budget. <br /> There is one more aspect to the ExoMars-C Rover that may benefit from a longer development time. I am referring to its role in Mars Sample Return, MSR. As is known, the ExoMars-C Rover will collect a cache of sample for MSR. However, I think that it is time to consider an expanded role. I think that the ExoMars-C Rover should serve as MSR's "Fetch" Rover. As it now stands, the reference MSR mission has the Lander element utilizing a pallet that would carry the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), a Fetch Rover, and survival solar panels. Even if NASA/ESA design a minimum Fetch Rover, it will still be a hefty item. One MUST include a power source, a manipulator arm, communications gear, and cameras, at a minimum. The MSL Rover weighs 850 Kg. I do not know the total MAV mass, but I imagine that a more capable Ascent Vehicle could be built (less mission risk) if there were more mass margin in the landed element. <br /> Another reason to utilize the ExoMars-C Rover as the MSR Fetch Rover is COST. We have just seen how the ExoMars/MAX-C dual rover mission had to be scaled back to a single Rover. One of the main drivers for this was cost. Part of the savings came from the decision to use a "build-to-print" Sky Crane from the MSL mission. If we can use a similar Sky Scrane descent stage Clone for the MSR landed element, then I would imagine there would be significant savings. <br /> The time to start thinking about this expanded role for the ExoMars-C Rover is now. The MSR teams need to know soon what they can expect from the ExoMars-C Rover to support them. As for the use of an "old" ExoMars-C Rover for MSR, as opposed to a "new" Fetch Rover, I think that I would rather depend on an up-and-running Rover than depend on the risk of a "new" one.Phil Horzempahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877760318970050320noreply@blogger.com