NASA/ESA - Mars Sample Return mission

[vjkane]

isnt that just reading into a favored option? I would argue that the "obvious candidate" is VERY far from it except on twitter.

You are stating that there's a obvious candidate on twitter. I said nothing of the sort. I just said that there's 2 weeks of work time, US holiday schedule. The deep engineering analyses must have been done already.

Then what did you mean by "one obvious candidate" when you said it?

Two weeks work time is nothing for a task force. To do a report by the end of the year means that among all the proposals, one (or perhaps none*) stands out and will be recommended. There isn't time to do a full independent review, especially one with any technical assessment, much less programmatic and budget assessment.

NASA has had these proposals for a while now, so the review panel isn't starting from scratch.
I have no idea which one, if I'm right, looks good. If I had those kinds of inside sources, my name would be Eric Berger.

*it's possible that no proposed solution meets cost and schedule targets and is technically mature. The task force may recommend leaving the sample tubes on Mars for a few decades.

[TrevorMonty]

isnt that just reading into a favored option? I would argue that the "obvious candidate" is VERY far from it except on twitter.

You are stating that there's a obvious candidate on twitter. I said nothing of the sort. I just said that there's 2 weeks of work time, US holiday schedule. The deep engineering analyses must have been done already.

Then what did you mean by "one obvious candidate" when you said it?

Two weeks work time is nothing for a task force. To do a report by the end of the year means that among all the proposals, one (or perhaps none*) stands out and will be recommended. There isn't time to do a full independent review, especially one with any technical assessment, much less programmatic and budget assessment.

NASA has had these proposals for a while now, so the review panel isn't starting from scratch.
I have no idea which one, if I'm right, looks good. If I had those kinds of inside sources, my name would be Eric Berger.

*it's possible that no proposed solution meets cost and schedule targets and is technically mature. The task force may recommend leaving the sample tubes on Mars for a few decades.

If they pick a company/companies maybe case of paying for more design work before committing to it.

[edzieba]

This isn't a review to determine who might get a contract to conduct a sample return mission. This is a review to see which if any of the study proposals suggested pass the sniff test to be worth following on as actual studies on potential alternative MSR architectures.

[vjkane]

This isn't a review to determine who might get a contract to conduct a sample return mission. This is a review to see which if any of the study proposals suggested pass the sniff test to be worth following on as actual studies on potential alternative MSR architectures.

If they pick a company/companies maybe case of paying for more design work before committing to it.

A full program of contracting, design, build, and testing would follow the selection of any concept architecture.

My suspicion is that the [most] credible architecture is obvious, or it may be obvious that there are none.

Programmatics may play a part. Keep JPL as a functional national technical resource. Build on existing commercial relationships.

I for one will carefully read the report for what is said, hinted at, and not said. The last are often the loudest shouts.

[deltaV]

[Two pages]

That appears to be https://aviationweek.com/space/space-exploration/nasa-assessing-options-faster-cheaper-mars-sample-return .

The MSR review team’s recommendation is to be presented to senior NASA leaders, including Nelson, before year-end. “Hopefully, the administrator will approve the recommended architecture,” Gramling said. “That would be followed by an agency acquisition strategy in the spring.”

It's strange for NASA to design the architecture before picking the acquisition strategy since a commercial-style acquisition strategy doesn't include a NASA-designed architecture. This suggests that NASA isn't taking the possibility of a commercial-style acquisition strategy very seriously.

[Carl G]

Thank you Delta V and for the report to mod. We do not allow copyright breaches here, so I have trimmed the post.

[Athelstane]

*it's possible that no proposed solution meets cost and schedule targets and is technically mature. The task force may recommend leaving the sample tubes on Mars for a few decades.

Right. And I hate to say it, but this might not be the worst option for NASA.

[thespacecow]

Foust Forward | Who gets the final word on Mars Sample Return?

The timeline for NASA’s MSR assessment means that a decision might be made just before the Trump administration takes office. While the incoming administration has said nothing about MSR specifically, it’s likely they will, at the very least, review any decision made by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson in what are likely his final weeks on the job.

Radical changes to the program could be on the table. A program that is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over its initial cost projections could become a target for a Trump administration focused on slashing government spending. On the other hand, canceling MSR would open the door for China to become the first nation to return samples from Mars, dealing a blow to American leadership in space exploration.

Alternatively, MSR could be overtaken by events. Elon Musk has discussed sending Starships to Mars as soon as 2026. With Musk in Trump’s inner circle, he could make the case for using Starships to return samples faster and cheaper than conventional approaches. SpaceX is among the companies that participated in the MSR studies, but has shared no details about its proposal, other than indicating it would rely on Starship.