From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Launch vehicle[edit]

Latest ESA info suggest launch in 2013 by Ariane 5. I am looking for a clear reference on this.

The latest info I know, was on couple of weeks ago and claimed ExoMars to fly in 2011 on a Soyuz-2b rocket from Kourou. Do you have a source for the 2013 launch info? --Bricktop 08:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Should be clearer either at IAC congress in Fukuoka or at the ESA Ministerial Conference in November in Berlin.Hektor 11:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
At IAC in Fukuoka they said 2011 with a considerably smaller rover than originally intended. But there will be a fixed station as well. They switch from twice as big as MER to somewhat smaller than MER. And launcher is Soyuz.Hektor 12:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
A Russian vehicle from Guayana? Has this been done before?MadMaxDog 03:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As of October 2009, there are 2 conflicting reports on the launch vehicle to be used: Russia's 'Proton' rocket and NASA's Atlas V rocket. Lets include both and let the dust settle till the ESA makes an official anouncement. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The deal was signed today for 2 Atlas rockets:[1]--BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Roscosmos accepted invitation to join the project. Proton will be given in exchange of full right membership. Final decision will be given by two inspection groups on 19 december 2011 in Moscow on meeting of NASA, ESA and FCA. One group should answer the question whatever Proton can be technically used for the project. Second is thinking on Russian participation in scientific part of the project. [2] Elk Salmon (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I am glad it will become a more international project. It sounds like there is an understanding to colaborate, I suggest to wait until a collaboration is signed. Alternatively, update the article stating that negociations with Roscosmos are ongoing. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
According to news decision postponed till February. But it said there are also talks about joint Lunar, Venus and Ganymede missions. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The info via ESA and NASA is not existing even people who should know do not talk, so before February we will have nothing. The vibration levels (directly depending on the launcher) have been changed and changed and will be changed again. --Stone (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There will be another significant change. What I hear we have to rewrite the article once again.--Stone (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep. The Russians are comming and NASA is steping down. [3]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
TAS-I is back to a 300kg rover design and we have to deal with the decrease in science payload.--Stone (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Self-reminder to include this report when we re-write this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
And this? --Stone (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Single rover proposal[edit]

In 7 April 2011 it was anounced that ESA and NASA are now considering to build only one rover for the 2018 launch. They would omit the MAX-C rover and the new ExoMars rover would be larger than the original plans. I added this update in the "history" section but am not sure if to modify the article now in a more comprehensive manner, or if we should wait for more info to be released. What are your thoughts on this? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I heard a talk by Albert Haldemann about the future of ExoMars and Max-C. --Stone (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC) The only possibility to avoid a MSL landing system re design is a one rover concept. So to save money this is the only way they found they can go.--21:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I placed the 'outdated' tag as the MAX-C rover proposal was cancelled and the ExoMars construction has been halted. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
My experience is exactly what is written in the news. TAS-I has stopped the work until a decision in May. The only positive thing is that NASA has no chance to cancel Mars Sample Return mission package. The Decadal Survey makes it clear that sample return is the most important goal of NASA planetary missions. Let's wait for a decision in May.--Stone (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
ESA Cleared To Restart Work on 2016 Mars Mission (May 28, 2011) Still looks like a single-rover mission. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
They work on it. The meeting 26 May went OK and they now study for a concept. First drafts may be shown at the next MEPAG meeting in Lisbon mid of this month. A decision might have to wait till the next ESA NASA meeting in late September. So lets wait another two weeks.--19:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Update from Aviation Week. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article[edit]

As per my comments over on the Trace Gas Orbiter talk page, the format of this article began just describing the Exomars lander/rover as it was first proposed. Since then the Exomars program has been expanded to two pre-MSR missions designed to characterise possible exobiology/habitats. This article has tried to keep up with that by extending coverage to the whole programme but this means that focus on the rover is now diminished and as I said it seems a bit schizophrenic. Given that each mission, TGO and the rover, are both likely to warrant a full article in their own right it would make sense to split this one into an "Exomars pragramme" and "Exomars rover". ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor. Go for it and I will assist you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
...OK I'll do it and you guys mop up  ;-) Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice....I spent all mornig creating the Exomars lander article and it was immediately deleted. I'm out. Good luck. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Russia's partnership?[edit]

Even if NASA has fallen out from ExoMars, there's a slight possibility that Russia doesn't bother participating, or simply reject. It may be possible that the talks between Russian and ESA might go on for some time, but if not forever. However, there is a big chance that Russia may take up. Is it right or not? (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ESA-Roscosmos update[edit]

I just updated the article on the new proposed partnership, and deleted/moved some outdated information. I am sure I may have done some mistakes so please feel free to review and correct my edits - and grammar. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thursday ESA Program board granted money for 2016 and the Russians want to sign an agreement for a launcher and all the American instruments. Страховка от «Фобос-грунта» полетит на Марс--Stone (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like ESA formally invited the Russians, and the Russians are stating their conditions for partnership. I'll make the update; thx! BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Working groups have approved membership in the project. An agreement should be signed till end of the year. [4] Elk Salmon (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


This page [5] states that Roscosmos may provide "radioactive heat generators" for both the EDM and the rover. This may dramatically increase the duration -and scientific return- of the mission. However, I'd like to wait for more sources to confirm this before its inclusion in the article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Radioisotope heater unit showed up in some of the first drawings of the rover before 2007. This was never dropped and the place close to the RHU was always a horror for the engineers trying to participate the heat of the electronics. Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM)was planed with a life time of days to reduce costs. This was clearly stated on a meeting in Frascati Italy. Most of the scientists argued against it but the simple statement that we have to find the money for that by cutting back major parts of science. If the instruments and the ground control is done by the Russians this does not cost ESA anything they are likely to drop the requirement of an early death of the EDM. A RHU in the lander and some solar arrays might give a few years of meteorologic data.--Stone (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proton rocket type?[edit]

As of this moment, we don't know what Proton rocket is going to launch both ExoMars missions, since Roscosmos reached an agreement with ESA for their collaboration. I think Proton-M is the best, given that Proton-K made its last flight last March. From the forums: Roscosmos' part in the ExoMars program. I felt that editors may add Proton-M into the article, these must be cited using verifiable, reliable third party sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Starkiller88 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your block was lifted 5 seconds ago and you are back at it?! For the nth time: in Wikipedia it matters NOTHING what you speculate (WP:SPECULATION). When Roscosmos anounces the specific Proton rocket model to be used, then it will be included and sourced here. And please respect the fact that the talk pages are WP:NOTFORUMS at your disposal to publish your own thoughts and analyses. You know this, anything else is a continuation of your trolling. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
No. I'm not back at it, given that you praised me at the talk page of the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment article for adding "something coherent". I am not introducing speculations as I know this talk page is not a forum, and I am not continuing my trolling further. I have to leave this information about the specific Proton rocket out to be used until the time Roscosmos announces it. –Starkiller88 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, despite his track record, he is right this time. As things stand if it is definitely going on a Proton, it will be a Proton-M because that is the only Proton configuration flying. There are also a couple of references to it being on a Proton-M, and some ESA sources say "Ariane 5 or Proton-M" (so coupled with a source confirming that the downselect to Proton has been made, I don't think that would be too far a leap to make without entering the realm of synthesis). --W. D. Graham 16:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

RTG removal from the 2016 static lander[edit]

Just a heads-up that Jonathan Amos, one of the BBC Science Correspondents, has just tweeted that the 2016 lander won't now have a Russian-supplied RTG. I suspect that given it was planned as part of a barter then there'll likely be other changes elsewhere. We'll need a citable source on this which will probably come soon. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RHU or RTG? --Stone (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The lander was planned to have both RTGs and RHUs, see here, the plan being for it to power the lander for at least a year. Jonathan specifically states the RTG, but I suspect that means the RHUs are unnecessary too with the short mission scenario. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The exact payload and structure is still not fixed, this will take some more months. --Stone (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


--Stone (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope they publish the out come of the payload re-arrangement last week in Paris by PB-HME soon. --Stone (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have the feeling that IF ExoMars doesn't get cancelled, the final word on the payload will be in November after the ESA determines if it could cough up the cash. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a final (as final as ExoMars decisions are) word on the payload, but I am not allowed to disclose it. So let's wait.--Stone (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
NASA will also deliver important contributions to ExoMars, including the Electra UHF radio package for TGO, and Mars Proximity Link telecom and engineering support to EDM.
It will be interesting to see landing concept NASA is advicing. Airbags? retrorockets? skycrane-like system? I reckon it depends on mass of the rover; has it been settled at 300kg? Seems heavy for an airbag system. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The EDM is the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module, to be delivered to Mars by TGO, not the rover landing system. The EDM will use powered descent ("retrorockets"). Russia will be responsible for the rover landing, so it's doubtful the US will provide much assistance for that. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought that was advice for the rover's landing system. To be retrorockets too? CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The EDM will be small and ESA will be able to produce something, but the presented concepts for the rover looked very early stage. Retrorockets looking like what Phoenix looked like was what is in the presentations at the ESWT5. Best was that there is absolutely no parachute available for the mass of the rover plus landing platform.--Stone (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

After meeting Don McCoy and the funding agencies for the Analytical Instruments the situation looks strange.--Stone (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please tell us they don't plan to only use retrorockets all the way down. Any links to the latest plans? BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The latest Plans are all in the ESWT5 document package, but they look like there should be a large parachute and in the end retrorockets. The only point is that there is no parachute of the size we need. The funding of the instruments is of more concern for me. The whole story needs a top-level decision soon. After years not having a top-level decision this looks complicated to me.--Stone (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed on current plans for Mars sample return missions[edit]

The current situation of future plans for Mars sample return missions (such as Mars sample return mission, Mars Exploration Joint Initiative, Aurora programme, Mars-Grunt and ExoMars) needs to be updated, especially what current plans on contributions and time-tables are from NASA, ESA and Roskomos. If anybody can contribute with references, it would be most welcome. Tony Mach (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exomars Science Working Team Meeting 6 is over[edit]

ESWT6 was held in Moscow Feb 2014 and I hope somebody will publish more info on the Russian instruments. --Stone (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bias in the article[edit]

I can't help but notice that this article contains bias and subjective political agenda against Russia/Roscosmos, namely:

  • Russian Landing piece: Country in place of the company. Only 1 party of many project participants has criticism in the article. Criticism comes from mass media outlets, not from scientific sources, 2 out of 3 references are from the same newspaper which less than 2 months between publications. The edit wall rolled back multiple time, once with the following reason - "it is not politics, but technology and statistics failures/successes". What kind of statistics on failures are we talking about here for the mars landing modules? In my opinion the whole sentence is a pure bias with little information: "

Critics have stated that while Russian expertise may be sufficient to provide a launch vehicle, it does not currently extend to the critical requirement of a landing system for Mars".

  • Current status piece: "After experiencing a series of mishaps in the last few years,[37][38] there are rising concerns about the Proton's reliability to fly the two-part ExoMars mission, as it now has a failure launch rate of 10%, or four failures out of 34 launches.[39][40] The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) launched on 14 March 2016 (Livestream began at 08:30 GMT [03:30 AM EDT]).[1][41][42]". The sentence has connotations like "rising", "it now has" which stipulates increasing rate of failures. Also, Proton's reliability article which is referenced in the block mentions 10 failures, over 100 launches, not 4 out of 34 which implies less successful launches. The fact that the first phase of the project was launched successfully goes after the critical text and is conveyed in an unclear/generic sentence: "The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) launched on 14 March 2016".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a political bias. In fact both ESA and Roscosmos are lack of experience of Mars EDL. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
From the 8 Soviet landers (including Phobos-Grunt), one succeeded. That is an 87.5% failure rate. Just facts, not an opinion. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


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" project, 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) 00:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The Schiaparelli lander crashed.[edit]

Several space agencies confirmed that the Schiaparelli lander crashed, yet the article's authors can only bring themselves to say "most likely crashed", and "what appears to be the lander crash site." What fragile egos Euros and Russians have. It crashed. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ExoMars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)