Rocket Lab Mars Sample Return Mission Proposal

[deltaV]

Article on this: https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-rocket-lab-study-contract-for-mars-sample-return/.

It includes a partial explanation of why the award was late:

“Rocket Lab was not included in the initial study concepts selected by NASA in June 2024, but Rocket Lab’s proposal was later re-evaluated by NASA and selected for a study contract as it closely aligned with the solicitation’s stated focus on innovation,” Rocket Lab said in an Oct. 7 statement to SpaceNews.

“All of the companies chosen submitted their proposals through the original ROSES solicitation and the addition of one more company will not delay the evaluation of the studies,” NASA said in a statement to SpaceNews Oct. 7 in response to inquiries about the Rocket Lab award Oct. 3 and 4. “NASA’s selection process allows for later additions at the selecting official’s discretion.”

[MattMason]

I love this notion very much.
Before reading the article from SN, I thought this was going to be an Electron mission and I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT happening.

That said, given the SRL talk, my speculative suggestion is to provide three spacecraft:
-Orbiter SRL Return Vehicle, which carries
>Lander with maybe a Lunar Outpost-built sample collecting rover
-Carrier spacecraft dedicated to carry only the Sample Return lander/ascent vehicle

Three spacecraft would simplify mass issues. The rover is contingency in the event Perseverance is inoperative. After the lander with ascent vehicle is in place, it supplements Mars communications (along with what's left in orbit; no guarantees that MRO, Odyssey, TGO, MAVEN or Mars Express are fully up, though possible) with the Return orbiter.

Solar-electric for return Orbiter might be a mass-savings.

This is a big-leagues opportunity for Rocket Lab and I hope they get in a great proposal. Neutron isn't even crucial here. RL makes spacecraft buses, could leverage other commercial lander entities and all of it launches aboard Falcon 9s if warranted.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Is it possible that they're looking at using Neutron as an SRL?  If so, doesn't it have the same problem as Starship, i.e., the fairing that launches from a swamp on Earth winds up landing in a Cat IVb planetary protection region on Mars?

[TrevorMonty]

Mars entry and landing vehicle is big unknown for RL. Likely to be <1000kg as earth departure  mass is limited to 1500kg if designed for Neutron launch.

One possibility is using HIAD for Mars entry. Its what NASA designed it for.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Mars entry and landing vehicle is big unknown for RL. Likely to be <1000kg as earth departure  mass is limited to 1500kg if designed for Neutron launch.

One possibility is using HIAD for Mars entry. Its what NASA designed it for.

If you want to start from a blank sheet of paper, there are all kinds of possibilities for lander architectures.  The problem with all of them is that the MSR people have to make a decision on an architecture some time in the next 6 months.  None of these architectures is anywhere close to being mature enough that they can actually reduce risk more than the risk the current architecture exposes the project to.

So "big unknowns" simply aren't going to cut it.  I think that the RL team is top-notch, but unless they've got something really revolutionary that nobody's thought of, this idea that they're going to sweep in, take over all the roles in the project, and save the day, is nuts.

Just for reference, the SRL team from 3 years ago estimated the landed mass of the SRL, even for a dual-launch architecture, at more than 3t, an entry mass of more than 5t.  That makes a landed payload of less than 1t sound pretty skimpy.

I'm pretty sure that if there's a winning study, it's gonna produce a more compact MAV with a better payload fraction, and it's gonna do it by switching from solid motors to liquids.  I could see RL coming up with something pretty interesting in that area.  But a full-up SRL?  I'm more than skeptical.

[TrevorMonty]

Mars entry and landing vehicle is big unknown for RL. Likely to be <1000kg as earth departure  mass is limited to 1500kg if designed for Neutron launch.

One possibility is using HIAD for Mars entry. Its what NASA designed it for.

If you want to start from a blank sheet of paper, there are all kinds of possibilities for lander architectures.  The problem with all of them is that the MSR people have to make a decision on an architecture some time in the next 6 months.  None of these architectures is anywhere close to being mature enough that they can actually reduce risk more than the risk the current architecture exposes the project to.

So "big unknowns" simply aren't going to cut it.  I think that the RL team is top-notch, but unless they've got something really revolutionary that nobody's thought of, this idea that they're going to sweep in, take over all the roles in the project, and save the day, is nuts.

Just for reference, the SRL team from 3 years ago estimated the landed mass of the SRL, even for a dual-launch architecture, at more than 3t, an entry mass of more than 5t.  That makes a landed payload of less than 1t sound pretty skimpy.

I'm pretty sure that if there's a winning study, it's gonna produce a more compact MAV with a better payload fraction, and it's gonna do it by switching from solid motors to liquids.  I could see RL coming up with something pretty interesting in that area.  But a full-up SRL?  I'm more than skeptical.

The original plan was for fetch rover and 2stage SRM MAV hence 3t on entry. NASA dropped fetch rover and planned to use Perseverance. Length of 450kg SRM was also limiting factor in design. MAV only needs to deliver 11kg Orbiting Sample container to ERO. RL MAV will most likely be using 310ISP Hypercurie engine and composite tanks so <250kg is not unrealistic. NB one team think they could get SRM MAV to 250kg.

[trimeta]

Mars entry and landing vehicle is big unknown for RL. Likely to be <1000kg as earth departure  mass is limited to 1500kg if designed for Neutron launch.

One possibility is using HIAD for Mars entry. Its what NASA designed it for.

If you want to start from a blank sheet of paper, there are all kinds of possibilities for lander architectures.  The problem with all of them is that the MSR people have to make a decision on an architecture some time in the next 6 months.  None of these architectures is anywhere close to being mature enough that they can actually reduce risk more than the risk the current architecture exposes the project to.

So "big unknowns" simply aren't going to cut it.  I think that the RL team is top-notch, but unless they've got something really revolutionary that nobody's thought of, this idea that they're going to sweep in, take over all the roles in the project, and save the day, is nuts.

Just for reference, the SRL team from 3 years ago estimated the landed mass of the SRL, even for a dual-launch architecture, at more than 3t, an entry mass of more than 5t.  That makes a landed payload of less than 1t sound pretty skimpy.

I'm pretty sure that if there's a winning study, it's gonna produce a more compact MAV with a better payload fraction, and it's gonna do it by switching from solid motors to liquids.  I could see RL coming up with something pretty interesting in that area.  But a full-up SRL?  I'm more than skeptical.

Is NASA ultimately going to pick exactly one of the proposals from among those funded through these study contracts, or do they have the capability to mix and match? While Rocket Lab proposes an end-to-end solution, perhaps there's a secondary hope that even if they don't get the full contract, they could still win specific parts of the project.

[TrevorMonty]

Mars entry and landing vehicle is big unknown for RL. Likely to be &lt;1000kg as earth departure  mass is limited to 1500kg if designed for Neutron launch.

One possibility is using HIAD for Mars entry. Its what NASA designed it for.

If you want to start from a blank sheet of paper, there are all kinds of possibilities for lander architectures.  The problem with all of them is that the MSR people have to make a decision on an architecture some time in the next 6 months.  None of these architectures is anywhere close to being mature enough that they can actually reduce risk more than the risk the current architecture exposes the project to.

So "big unknowns" simply aren't going to cut it.  I think that the RL team is top-notch, but unless they've got something really revolutionary that nobody's thought of, this idea that they're going to sweep in, take over all the roles in the project, and save the day, is nuts.

Just for reference, the SRL team from 3 years ago estimated the landed mass of the SRL, even for a dual-launch architecture, at more than 3t, an entry mass of more than 5t.  That makes a landed payload of less than 1t sound pretty skimpy.

I'm pretty sure that if there's a winning study, it's gonna produce a more compact MAV with a better payload fraction, and it's gonna do it by switching from solid motors to liquids.  I could see RL coming up with something pretty interesting in that area.  But a full-up SRL?  I'm more than skeptical.

Is NASA ultimately going to pick exactly one of the proposals from among those funded through these study contracts, or do they have the capability to mix and match? While Rocket Lab proposes an end-to-end solution, perhaps there's a secondary hope that even if they don't get the full contract, they could still win specific parts of the project.

NASA may decide to not fund any and forget MSR. Asking industry for ideas was act of desperation as project was blowing budget and going to be cancelled.

[sanman]

[deltaV]

Is NASA ultimately going to pick exactly one of the proposals from among those funded through these study contracts, or do they have the capability to mix and match? While Rocket Lab proposes an end-to-end solution, perhaps there's a secondary hope that even if they don't get the full contract, they could still win specific parts of the project.

I don't know if NASA is allowed to share the results of the RASMSR studies with other companies or if each study is proprietary to the company that wrote it.

If NASA chooses to have JPL and/or cost-plus contractors build the new MSR they can presumably mix and match (subject to any limits on proprietary info). If NASA goes with "commercial" style (which it should) NASA will need a new RFP and it should be up to the bidders on that RFP to decide if they want to use ideas from one or more RASMSR studies (subject to any limits on proprietary info).

NASA may decide to not fund any and forget MSR. Asking industry for ideas was act of desperation as project was blowing budget and going to be cancelled.

I expect that NASA will start a new MSR program because it would be embarrassing if China did MSR and NASA didn't and Congress usually prioritizes that sort of thing.

[TrevorMonty]

Here are specfications on Capstone Photon
 Hypercurie 310ISP Photon dry mass is 55kg + 27kg Capstone + 210kg fuel (based on 300kg wet mass).

No official thrust figures for Hypercurie but Steve calculated it at 450N. See RL payloads to moon and beyond thread from around post 20. (Pasting links is hit and miss on my ph).

NB capstone bus had solar panels, star trackers, long range radios so lot more dry mass than on MAV. Assume 250kg wet would need 2-3engines plus pump batteries to reach orbit.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Here are specfications on Capstone Photon
 Hypercurie 310ISP Photon dry mass is 55kg + 27kg Capstone + 210kg fuel (based on 300kg wet mass).

No official thrust figures for Hypercurie but Steve calculated it at 450N. See RL payloads to moon and beyond thread from around post 20. (Pasting links is hit and miss on my ph).

NB capstone bus had solar panels, star trackers, long range radios so lot more dry mass than on MAV. Assume 250kg wet would need 2-3engines plus pump batteries to reach orbit.

250kg gross liftoff mass for a MAV sounds pretty small.  And even then, you'd need a T/W of 2 to 5.  So that would be 5 to 11 HyperCuries.  That's never gonna close.

[TrevorMonty]

Here are specfications on Capstone Photon
 Hypercurie 310ISP Photon dry mass is 55kg + 27kg Capstone + 210kg fuel (based on 300kg wet mass).

No official thrust figures for Hypercurie but Steve calculated it at 450N. See RL payloads to moon and beyond thread from around post 20. (Pasting links is hit and miss on my ph).

NB capstone bus had solar panels, star trackers, long range radios so lot more dry mass than on MAV. Assume 250kg wet would need 2-3engines plus pump batteries to reach orbit.

250kg gross liftoff mass for a MAV sounds pretty small.  And even then, you'd need a T/W of 2 to 5.  So that would be 5 to 11 HyperCuries.  That's never gonna close.

450N =45kg x 3 =135kg. 250kg/3(mars gavity)= 83kg.  135/83 =1.6 T/W
Samples weigh 11kg.
250kg would reach orbit (4.2km/s) with 63kg -11kg sample allows for 52kg vehicle dry mass. Battery hotswap would reduce that dry mass.

[TheRadicalModerate]

450N =45kg x 3 =135kg. 250kg/3(mars gavity)= 83kg.  135/83 =1.6 T/W
Samples weigh 11kg.
250kg would reach orbit (4.2km/s) with 63kg -11kg sample allows for 52kg vehicle dry mass. Battery hotswap would reduce that dry mass.

Eh?

Thrust = 450N
Weight = mass * marsG = 250kg * 3.72m/s^2 = 930N
T/W = 450N / 930N = 0.48

[TrevorMonty]

450N =45kg x 3 =135kg. 250kg/3(mars gavity)= 83kg.  135/83 =1.6 T/W
Samples weigh 11kg.
250kg would reach orbit (4.2km/s) with 63kg -11kg sample allows for 52kg vehicle dry mass. Battery hotswap would reduce that dry mass.

Eh?

Thrust = 450N
Weight = mass * marsG = 250kg * 3.72m/s^2 = 930N
T/W = 450N / 930N = 0.48

Three engines so T/W=1350/930=1.42

[TrevorMonty]

Adding extra engines will reduce gravity losses but increase dry mass due extra engines and stronger tanks to handle higher Gs.
More engines may not mean more battery mass. Battery mass is determined by KWh needed to power engines to orbit. More engines need more watts but for shorter period as it reaches orbit quickier.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Adding extra engines will reduce gravity losses but increase dry mass due extra engines and stronger tanks to handle higher Gs.
More engines may not mean more battery mass. Battery mass is determined by KWh needed to power engines to orbit. More engines need more watts but for shorter period as it reaches orbit quickier.

The turbomachinery and nozzles for 3 engines are gonna make the MAV quite wide, and the reliability considerably lower.

If HyperCurie is already providing a pump-fed MMH/NTO engine, then maybe scaling it up to, say, 3kN and Isp=310s (swapping thrust for Isp) wouldn't be the most difficult engineering task ever.  I'm not sure if RL has any use for such an engine beyond MSR (maybe for a small lunar lander?), but if they really do have a cradle-to-grave solution for MSR, the development effort might be worth it.

Let's do a sanity check on a pump-fed, two-stage MAV, with an 11.5kg OS (the reference design allocation), a HyperCurie 2nd stage (450N, Isp=320s), and a significantly thrust-enhanced SuperDuperHyperCurie (3kN, Isp=310s) 1st stage.  It's attached below.

Note that the structural coefficient (ε = dry / (dry+prop)) for each of the two stages is a complete guess, but small rockets tend to have much higher ε than larger stages, due to the fact that there's less prop to amortize all the stage overhead.  My SWAGs are 30% for stage 1 and 50% for stage 2.  I've also used the "rectal extraction" method to set the division of the 4200m/s delta-v budget at 65% 1st stage, 35% 2nd stage.  (There will be no fooling with Lagrange multipliers in this little exercise.)

Gross mass comes out at about 360kg, which is quite a bit more than your 250kg guess, but not as much as the reference design, which came in at 450kg.  Also, liquid prop stages can be squatter than solids; making a shorter, fatter MAV significantly relaxes the geometric constraints on the SRL.

I doubt that RL is the only company who's tumbled to the fact that going to liquids from solids is a pretty clear winner.  There will be several MAV proposals using storable liquids, despite the need for heating them to keep them from freezing.  However, RL is certainly the leader in electric-pump-fed engines, and the simplicity of those engines is a nice way to produce reliable engines with good Isp.

[TrevorMonty]

A SuperHyperCurie could find its way into 3rd stage for Neutron. Would allow direct delivery of satellites to GEO.

[TheRadicalModerate]

A SuperHyperCurie could find its way into 3rd stage for Neutron. Would allow direct delivery of satellites to GEO.

I think that's what one of the things that HyperCurie is for.  450N is fine for a GTO apogee kick.

[TrevorMonty]

The Escapade spacecraft are using Ariannespace supplied bipropellant engine 318 ISP & 397N. Pressure fed?
Not Hypercurie that I assumed.