Author Topic: Past MSR concepts (Read 6398 times)

whitelancer64 · « **on:** 03/21/2023 08:13 pm »

I was Googling up past MSR designs and ran across a paper on the 2 stage solid rocket design (PDF attached below). In the paper was an interesting graphic showing a brief timeline of past MAV concepts.

I was intrigued by the one labeled 1997. However, I cannot find any further references to this design, other than one (also in a line of past MAV concepts) in a recent educational powerpoint presentation. A zoomed in crop of the image from that presentation is also linked below.

If anyone knows any more about this design or can link to any papers about it, I would be very interested in reading more details on it.

The full extent of what I know about it is in those two pictures. It's surprisingly short. I'm guessing it was designed to fit inside a Pathfinder-sized aeroshell, but that's just a guess.

ccdengr · « **Reply #1 on:** 03/21/2023 09:19 pm »

See https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/file.xhtml?fileId=54547&version=1.0 "JPL 2-stage liquid". Somewhat similar to https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/marslife/slide_38.html, but the latter doesn't have the weird aeroshell thing on top.

See also https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/file.xhtml?fileId=43694&version=1.0

redliox · « **Reply #2 on:** 03/21/2023 11:56 pm »

What fuels for the liquid options were considered?

ccdengr · « **Reply #3 on:** 03/22/2023 12:34 am »

Quote from: redliox on 03/21/2023 11:56 pm

What fuels for the liquid options were considered?

The second paper I linked describes this: MMH and MON-25 biprop.

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/22/2023 07:25 pm »

Quote from: redliox on 03/21/2023 11:56 pm

What fuels for the liquid options were considered?

The paper posted above: "Advanced Storable Propulsion Technologies for Low-Cost Mars Sample Return" in the end describes a small, 2 stage MMH and MON-25 bipropellant MAV.

Paper available here: https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/file.xhtml?fileId=43694&version=1.0

The final paragraph of the abstract of that paper is this: "The MEP [Mars Exploration Program] has funded studies of potential MAPS [Mars Ascent Propulsion Systems] propulsion technologies, the most recent being that documented in Reference 1. It was concluded that some concepts, such as the use of in-situ propellant production offered relatively little improvement considering the risk of such a development. Some concepts which had higher leverage, such as the use of liquid fluorine as an oxidizer, or of pump-fed rocket engines, were felt to represent excessive development cost and risk. This paper describes the set of midpayoff / low risk technologies chosen for further development."

Reference 1 is : Guernsey, C., D. Thunnissen, J. French, and M. Adler, “Evaluation of Some Candidate Propulsion Technologies for Mars Ascent,” AIAA 98-065 1, Presented at the 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 12-1 5, 1998.

Paper available here: https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/file.xhtml?fileId=28619&version=1.0

The nine different fuel / oxidizer combinations studied in that paper were:

1. (Baseline) NTO and MMH
2. (Advanced Storable) MON-25 and MMH
3. LOX and Propane
4. LOX and Hydrazine
5. LOX and Methane
6. LOX and Carbon Monoxide
7. Chlorine Pentafluoride and Hydrazine
8. Fluorine and Hydrazine
9. LOX and HTPB and Aluminum (a hybrid rocket)

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #5 on:** 03/22/2023 07:42 pm »

Continued hunting through cited paper references came up with this:

Mars Ascent Propulsion on a Minimum Scale
April 27, 1998
Whitehead, J. C., Guernsey, C.

Paper available here: https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/file.xhtml?fileId=42668&version=1.0

"A concept is presented for a single stage vehicle intended to lift a Mars sample to an orbital rendezvous. At 200 kg liftoff mass, it can potentially be delivered by a Mars Pathfinder size aeroshell."

That's positively minuscule, wow.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #6 on:** 03/22/2023 10:01 pm »

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 03/22/2023 07:42 pm

Continued hunting through cited paper references came up with this:

Mars Ascent Propulsion on a Minimum Scale
April 27, 1998
Whitehead, J. C., Guernsey, C.

Paper available here: https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/file.xhtml?fileId=42668&version=1.0

"A concept is presented for a single stage vehicle intended to lift a Mars sample to an orbital rendezvous. At 200 kg liftoff mass, it can potentially be delivered by a Mars Pathfinder size aeroshell."

That's positively minuscule, wow.

Not really a surprise. The Mars Pathfinder EDL method derived from the Viking Landers can only delivered slightly less than 1 metric ton of lander with payload on the Martian surface.

JulesVerneATV · « **Reply #7 on:** 01/16/2024 04:14 pm »

NASA's troubled Mars sample-return mission has scientists seeing red

https://www.space.com/nasa-troubled-mars-sample-return-mission-scientists-upset

'Mars Sample Return Site Selection & Sample Acquisition Study (1980)'
https://www.wired.com/2014/01/site-selection-sample-acquisition-study-1980/

King was ambivalent about the need for mobility in an MSR mission; he wrote that, if the objective of the mission were to collect fresh igneous rocks, and if the MSR landing site were similar to the Viking landing sites, then little mobility would be necessary. He added that, while it might be prudent to "build in some additional mobility as a margin of safety and to afford additional possibilities for sample collection. . .such provisions [had to be] traded off against lander science and returned sample weight."

USGS geologist H. Moore wrote the sixth MSWG report, which constituted a tour of the landscape within view of the Viking 1 and Viking 2 lander cameras. Viking 2 landed in Utopia Planitia, near the large impact crater Mie, a region more northerly than Viking 1's site in Chryse Planitia. Like King, Moore wrote that Viking 1 rocks were varied (there were 30 types) and tended to be smaller than Viking 2 rocks. The Viking 2 rock population, for its part, appeared to be dominated by ejecta from Mie. Moore then described hypothetical rover traverses at the two sites. In each, the rover would visit 17 sampling stations, traverse about 100 meters, and range up to 20 meters from its lander.

JulesVerneATV · « **Reply #8 on:** 02/10/2024 10:53 am »

What went wrong with Mars Sample Return

https://www.planetary.org/articles/what-went-wrong-with-mars-sample-return

Emmettvonbrown · « **Reply #9 on:** 02/17/2024 09:53 am »

Attached documents: Viking MSR final report, July 1974. Two years before Viking 75 head-scratching organics & life search results. Baseline Viking EDL and lander, except modified with a 289 kg solid-fuel MAV. Could have brought back a 1 kg sample.

I know it might have been very premature from a science POV, but considering MSR development hell since 50 years, still ongoing... I wonder whether MSR should have been atempted by tweaking the third Viking lander: the spare one. That third Viking was proposed for a 1979 rover mission.