Europe's life-hunting ExoMars rover gets new landing platform to replace canceled Russian craft
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Europe's life-hunting Mars rover just got a new ride to the Red Planet's surface.
The European Space Agency (ESA) announced on Sunday (March 30) that it has picked Airbus to design and build the landing platform for its life-hunting Mars rover Rosalind Franklin, which is scheduled to launch in 2028.
Rosalind Franklin is a key piece of the ExoMars project, which was originally a partnership between ESA and Russia. Europe cut those ties shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, however, requiring key mission parameters to be reformulated.
Chief among those parameters were the launch vehicle, originally a Russian Proton rocket, and the landing platform, a Russian craft named Kazachok. Both are now out of the picture.
Related: Europe will issue new ExoMars lander contract in a few months for beleaguered Mars rover (exclusive)
Airbus teams in the United Kingdom will design the new ExoMars lander, which includes the landing platform and the propulsion system that will help slow Rosalind Franklin down on its way to the Martian surface, among other components.
"Getting the Rosalind Franklin rover onto the surface of Mars is a huge international challenge and the culmination of more than 20 years' work," Kata Escott, managing director at Airbus Defense and Space, U.K., said in an ESA statement. "The mission will supercharge our space know-how in the U.K. and will advance our collective understanding of our solar system."
The Airbus lander contract is worth 150 million pounds (about $194 million US), according to the U.K. Department of Science, Innovation and Technology.
RELATED STORIES:
— ExoMars: Europe's astrobiology missions to Mars
— Europe's ExoMars rover unlikely to launch before 2028
— Europe ending cooperation with Russia on life-hunting Mars rover
Rosalind Franklin is Europe's first-ever Red Planet rover. The wheeled robot will hunt for signs of Mars life with a variety of instruments and other gear, including a drill that will allow it to collect samples the lie up to 6.5 feet (2 meters) beneath the world's surface.
Rosalind Franklin will launch from the United States aboard a rocket selected by NASA, as the agency is a mission partner. If all goes according to plan, the rover will touch down in 2030 in Oxia Planum, a plain in the northern hemisphere of Mars that harbors evidence of past water activity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Musk Privately Complaining That His Immense Donations to Trump Didn't Even Buy Him Control of NASA
Billionaire Elon Musk's breakup with president Donald Trump, a feud that's been many months in the making, has become almost indescribably messy. In public, the pair have mainly butted heads over Trump's tax bill, which is expected to add trillions of dollars to an already colossal mountain of debt. Musk has excoriated the bill as a "disgusting abomination," ominously calling for any Republican lawmakers willing to support it to be "fired" during next year's midterm elections. As a move that's widely been seen as retribution, the White House unexpectedly announced over the weekend that it's pulling Jared Isaacman's nomination — Musk's personal pick — for the role of NASA administrator. In a baffling statement at the time, the White House said Isaacman wasn't in "full alignment with" the Trump agenda. If the move was intended as an attack on Musk, it succeeded. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the move has "infuriated" the richest man in the world, who's been seething privately to his inner circle that the hundreds of millions of dollars he paid to get Trump elected didn't even buy him the privilege of picking the next NASA head. Looking past the astonishingly oligarchical thesis that a billionaire opening his checkbook should automatically allow him to pick key members of government, the episode also illustrates Musk's increasingly shaky sense of strategy. Trump has long been known for his pettiness, arrogance, and shifty sense of allegiance; absolutely nobody should be surprised, at this point, when an attempted alliance with the longtime reality TV star doesn't work out the way it was intended. Nobody knew this better than Trump's own staff at the White House. According to the WSJ, they were attempting to bury the hatchet before Musk made his departure, and part ways on good terms. But given Musk's latest comments, those efforts appear to have been in vain. Besides fuming over losing hand-pick to control NASA, Musk has plenty of other reasons to hop off the Trump train to refocus his efforts on his businesses. For one, he has done incredible damage to his carmaker Tesla, which is still reeling from plummeting sales worldwide. SpaceX is also seriously struggling to make progress on its enormous, Mars-bound Starship rocket. Meanwhile, the real motivation behind Isaacman's dismissal hasn't flown over the billionaire space tourist's head. "I had a pretty good idea, I don't think the timing was much of a coincidence," Isaacman told Ars Technica. "Obviously, there was more than one departure that was covered on that day," he added, likely referring to Musk. "There were some people who had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target," he added. More on Isaacman: Trump Just Kicked Elon Musk's Hand-Picked NASA Head to the Curb
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Boeing Still Uses Yokes Instead Of Side Sticks
Yokes, at least for aircraft controls and not electric cars like Teslas, go all the way back to the early 1900s, before hydraulics were on planes. Since the pilot's input physically moved the necessary cables attached to the plane's moving parts, they'd really need to put their muscle into it. That meant having a big, sturdy thing they could grab with both hands and wrestle with. The yoke, also called a control column, was form meeting function. That function has changed a lot in the modern era, however. In a time when most planes are fly-by-wire (meaning the pilot's input goes to a computer, which then figures out which parts of the plane to move), the yoke may seem like a bit of a relic. Indeed, European aviation juggernaut Airbus ditched the control column in 1985 with the introduction of its A320. Opting instead for a side stick -- a much fancier version of a joystick control -- Airbus let its pilots make small, simple hand movements that the computer would translate to the rest of the aircraft. And yet, to this day, America's airliner powerhouse Boeing continues to put a yoke on every single one of its commercial planes. It's not that it missed the memo of what Airbus was up to, though. Boeing continues to believe that a yoke confirms the importance of the pilot over the computer, and it believes that very prominence distinguishes its planes from the competition. Read more: How Much Do Car Salespeople Make? The Pay Structure Explained Boeing has at least thought about switching to side sticks as far back as the development of the venerable 737 in the 1960s. Over the decades, however, it has stuck with the yoke. For one thing, that makes it easier for pilots of one Boeing plane to jump into the cockpit of another, since this pivotal system is essentially the same in all of them. That reduces retraining costs and preserves a pilot's comfort and familiarity. Using a yoke is also a much more actively involved experience than using a side stick. Even though most modern Boeings are fly-by-wire (though, notably, not the troubled 737 MAX), the company still requires the pilot to make a number of decisions about the flight that might otherwise be automated. The idea is to put the pilot in the center of the experience, rather than hope the computer is working correctly. In addition, the yokes of the pilot and co-pilot are designed to give direct tactile feedback to each other. This way, when one of them makes a move, the other can both see it (since the yokes are in front of them) and feel it. This keeps the pilot and co-pilot in better coordination and helps prevent them from accidentally fighting each other's controls -- coordination that could be vital in emergency situations. Yokes are, by their nature, big and bulky things right in front of the pilot. That also takes up a lot of visual space, making the cockpit cluttered. One of the reasons Airbus switched to sticks, which are small and to the pilot's side, was to free up room for more, and bigger, displays. The emphasis of the Airbus experience, therefore, is not so much on the flying as on the monitoring of critical data and information. The fly-by-wire computer can handle all the little details. Depending on the pilot, that might be viewed as a major convenience or a major loss of human value. But the Airbus design doesn't allow for direct feedback between the pilot's and co-pilot's sticks (even though this technology does exist). Since they can't even see each other's sticks (because they're off to the side), there's no real way for the pilot and co-pilot to know exactly what the other is doing at any given moment. This can be dangerous in an emergency. Indeed, the tragic crash of Air France flight 447 was attributed to this exact issue. Of course, one way Airbus might get around this is by ditching the co-pilot altogether. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
A US veteran who fought in Ukraine says drones are 'horrendous' for soldiers' morale
A US veteran who fought in Ukraine said the amount of drones is a "horrendous detriment to morale." He said soldiers often can't leave their bunkers, and have limited ability to go on operations. He lost friends who had a grenade explode next to them "out of nowhere, under a blue sky," he added. A US veteran who fought in Ukraine said that the scale of drones in the war is terrible for troops' morale, and that soldiers sometimes won't see a drone coming in clear blue skies before it kills them. Carl Larson, an Iraq veteran who was born in Seattle and served in Ukraine's International Legion, said that the huge presence of drones is "a horrendous detriment to morale." "I can't speak for the Russian side, but on the Ukrainian side, it's incredibly corrosive to your ability to conduct combat operations," he said at a drone conference last week. "You can't leave your blindage, your bunker, at least not during the day," he added. Larson said that "anyone who's been under artillery barrage knows how negative that is to your mental well-being and how many soldiers, seemingly strong-minded soldiers, can't handle that sort of stress." He also said he lost "good friends" in Ukraine "that died from having a grenade explode next to them out of nowhere, under a blue sky, you couldn't even hear it. Bang, they're dead." Larson said that some drone types, especially the fiberoptic drones that both Russia and Ukraine are now using, are "damn near undetectable, they come in hot at over a hundred miles an hour." Fiberoptic drones typically can't be jammed, unlike more classic drone types, and Larson said that if soldiers can't take them down with more traditional means, like guns, then "it's horrible." Larson, who served as a combat engineer in Iraq, was speaking at Drone Summit 2025, a gathering of more than 100 defense companies, defense ministers, and military officials in NATO member state Latvia. He's no longer with the International Legion, but is still helping Ukraine, including as the executive director of Defense Tech for Ukraine, a group that works to get drones and other technology to Ukrainian soldiers. He said at the summit: "I believe that Ukrainians are fighting for all of us." Larson's comments mirror those made by Ukrainian soldiers and other Western veterans who have taken part in the fighting. A Ukrainian drone operator told BI earlier this year that there are so many drones in the sky that soldiers often can't tell who they belong to. And the sheer number of drones means soldiers need to find ways to stay safe, including building fake positions and digging trenches to hide in. Drones are so common in Ukraine that they've removed the lifesaving window to rescue injured soldiers, called the "golden hour," another US veteran, who trains troops in Ukraine, previously told BI. They have also fundamentally changed military tactics in Ukraine, because they remove lots of the element of surprise, the veteran, who goes by the call sign Jackie, said. Drones have been used to scan the battlefield and gather intelligence to direct other weaponry, and to launch attacks themselves on soldiers and other targets. They can also be equipped with bombs and grenade launchers, as well as machine guns. Ukraine and Russia are in a desperate race to develop better and more drones than each other, with Ukraine increasingly relying on drones as it suffers shortages of other weapons from its allies. In contrast, it can make most of the drones it uses itself. In his comments, Larson talked about the long-term mental toll of things like drone warfare on those in combat. He said that there are some groups that do "very good work" with demobilized Ukrainian soldiers to combat PTSD and work on mental and physical rehabilitation and employment prospects. "It's really challenging," he said. Read the original article on Business Insider
