Proposal for manned retrieval of samples from Mars orbit

[ChileVerde]

Presumably this was done in consultation with John Shannon's destinations study.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/nasa-aims-for-human-rendezvous-at-mars-in-2033.html

NASA aims for human rendezvous at Mars in 2033
23 May 2012 | 22:45 BST | Posted by Eric Hand

It would be the most precious cargo since the Apollo astronauts returned Moon rocks to Earth. In 2033, humans would arrive in Mars orbit in order to pick up and return to Earth a canister containing the hopes and dreams of Mars scientists: a small collection of Mars rocks that would have been previously collected and put into orbit.

An internal NASA study group, tasked with replanning the agency’s beleaguered Mars programme, revealed on Tuesday that it was using this working scenario and date as a goal. The group has been tasked with finding ways of getting the human and robotic sides of NASA to work together more. In return for supplemental funds from the human programme and the technology office, the robotic science missions might, for instance, include experiments useful for the human programme, such as radiation detectors or optical communication demonstrations.

While the administration of President Barack Obama has said before that it would like to put humans in the vicinity of Mars by the early 2030s, this is the first articulation I’ve seen of a specific, shared date for the key goal of both the human and robotic sides. Orlando Figueroa, a former NASA official leading the study group, presented the working plans on Wednesday to a newly convened committee of the National Academies responsible for astrobiology and planetary science.

(snip)

[ChileVerde]

Maybe related.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24may_newconcepts/

NASA Showered with Bold New Concepts for Mars Exploration

May 24, 2012: NASA's call to scientists and engineers to help plan a new strategy to explore Mars has resulted in a flurry of unique and bold ideas, almost doubling the number of expected submissions.

"This strong response sends a clear message that exploring Mars is important to future exploration," says John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate at the agency's headquarters in Washington and an astrophysicist and astronaut.

NASA is reformulating the Mars Exploration Program to be responsive to high-priority science goals and President Obama's challenge of sending humans to Mars orbit in the 2030s. About 400 concepts or abstracts were submitted to the Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration Workshop in Houston. Submissions came from individuals and teams that included professional researchers, undergraduate and graduate students, NASA centers, federal laboratories, industry, and international partner organizations.

"The challenge now will be to select the best ideas for the next phase," says Grunsfeld.

Selected abstracts will be presented during the workshop June 12-14 hosted by the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. Selectees are now being invited to present and discuss concepts, options, capabilities and innovations to advance Mars exploration. Workshop discussion will help inform a strategy for exploration within available resources beginning as early as 2018, and stretching into the next decade and beyond. Proceedings will be streamed live online.

(snip)

[Kaputnik]

Hmmm, I used to think that a manned landing on Mars was always 20 years in the future.
Now it seems that we will have to wait longer than that and only get to Mars orbit.

An emphasis on Mars orbit operations before proceeding to landings does have some downsides. You would have to create a truly self-sustaining spacecraft capable of supporting the crew for three years. If you proceed directly to Mars surface missions, you can use the planet's own gravity, radiation shielding, oxygen, and possibly water.

[ChileVerde]

Hmmm, I used to think that a manned landing on Mars was always 20 years in the future.
Now it seems that we will have to wait longer than that and only get to Mars orbit.

We should have a better idea about that once the 180 Day Exploration Destination Report becomes available.

[BobCarver]

Wouldn't it make sense for us to simply land on Phobos and collect lots of samples there? This could be done entirely robotically, cheaply and wouldn't have to wait 11 years to get the results.

[dwightlooi]

The whole idea of sending humans to pickup samples or do science with regard to Mars is plain silly. It takes a lot of LV capacity to get a man to mars, more yet to bring the food, water, life support and other stuff he needs to survive the trip and function in whatever sicentific capacity tasked. Just send a robotic lander, a big one if you really want or a hundred of them! It'll be a lot easier, a lot sooner and a lot more scientifically effective.

The purpose of a manned mission to Mars will always be that to land a Man on Mars for no other purpose other than to accomplish that feat for pride, respect, national prestige, mankind's historic milestone, or whatever accolades associated with it. It should never be about science, sample or data collection. This is why I have always said we should send ONE man on the leanest, lightest mission possible with zero scientific value. Doesn't even matter if he comes back debilitated like a prisoner in a Vietcong gulag as long as he survives.

[Dalhousie]

The whole idea of sending humans to pickup samples or do science with regard to Mars is plain silly. It takes a lot of LV capacity to get a man to mars, more yet to bring the food, water, life support and other stuff he needs to survive the trip and function in whatever sicentific capacity tasked. Just send a robotic lander, a big one if you really want or a hundred of them! It'll be a lot easier, a lot sooner and a lot more scientifically effective.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.  Say three scientific papers showing that unmanned exploration is more cost effective than manned.  Or even three planetary scientists with experience on actual Moon and Mars missions who are prepared to say this.

The purpose of a manned mission to Mars will always be that to land a Man on Mars for no other purpose other than to accomplish that feat for pride, respect, national prestige, mankind's historic milestone, or whatever accolades associated with it. It should never be about science, sample or data collection. This is why I have always said we should send ONE man on the leanest, lightest mission possible with zero scientific value. Doesn't even matter if he comes back debilitated like a prisoner in a Vietcong gulag as long as he survives.

Worst possible justification for sending someone to Mars.

[kkattula]

...An emphasis on Mars orbit operations before proceeding to landings does have some downsides. You would have to create a truly self-sustaining spacecraft capable of supporting the crew for three years. If you proceed directly to Mars surface missions, you can use the planet's own gravity, radiation shielding, oxygen, and possibly water.

Wouldn't it make sense for us to simply land on Phobos and collect lots of samples there? This could be done entirely robotically, cheaply and wouldn't have to wait 11 years to get the results.

Land the manned spacecraft on Phobos. In a reasonably deep crater, they get a lot of radiation protection from the ground around them and Mars overhead. Plus get to explore an asteroid, maybe do some ISRU, and even tele-operate vehicles on the surface of Mars. Low gravity compensation will take some work, but is not impossible. 

Establish an outpost the next mission can stage surface sorties from.

[Dalhousie]

As far as I know nobody has ever done a detailed study of a Mars mission that teleoperations exploration from orbit  than includes an inventory and breakdown of the mass of the surface exploration components.