As promised. (I apologize for the poor quality, but I don't have the ability to grab the source files at the moment, so I'm using screen grabs of our already-compressed pdf of the report.)... [snip][Update: just FYI, this is referred to as the Orbital Sample vehicle, or the OS.]
Here's a fun idea:Because the Mars 2020 rover leaves a trail of small sample cores for a later fetch rover to pick up, they should name the Mars 2020 rover "Hansel", and they should name the fetch rover "Gretel".
Quote from: jbenton on 09/14/2018 08:36 amHere's a fun idea:Because the Mars 2020 rover leaves a trail of small sample cores for a later fetch rover to pick up, they should name the Mars 2020 rover "Hansel", and they should name the fetch rover "Gretel".Actually the plan is to establish one or two caches of many sample tubes.
Quote from: jbenton on 09/17/2018 01:51 amQuote from: vjkane on 09/16/2018 05:06 pmQuote from: jbenton on 09/14/2018 08:36 amHere's a fun idea:Because the Mars 2020 rover leaves a trail of small sample cores for a later fetch rover to pick up, they should name the Mars 2020 rover "Hansel", and they should name the fetch rover "Gretel".Actually the plan is to establish one or two caches of many sample tubes.It's going to drop them into two piles? I guess that makes it easier for the fetch rover to do its job. I thought part of the point was to reduce risk for Mars 2020: if it gets stuck in a rut at least some of the samples would be off-board.I guess this is kind of a compromise between the original idea of having Mars 2020 fill up a canister with the samples and the idea of leaving a trail of cores.Didn't I post slides about that upstream? We got a good explanation for the sample deposit strategy back in spring. I don't remember the specifics, but they were thinking about establishing safe areas where they would drop the samples. But I suspect that this will be somewhat dynamic based upon what they encounter on the surface. For instance, if the rover gets momentarily stuck somewhere, they will probably not want to risk getting stuck again with samples onboard, so they might get unstuck, return to a safe area, and drop their samples even if that's not the original plan. Then they would proceed. The philosophy is to not build up too much risk of losing a bunch of samples.
Quote from: vjkane on 09/16/2018 05:06 pmQuote from: jbenton on 09/14/2018 08:36 amHere's a fun idea:Because the Mars 2020 rover leaves a trail of small sample cores for a later fetch rover to pick up, they should name the Mars 2020 rover "Hansel", and they should name the fetch rover "Gretel".Actually the plan is to establish one or two caches of many sample tubes.It's going to drop them into two piles? I guess that makes it easier for the fetch rover to do its job. I thought part of the point was to reduce risk for Mars 2020: if it gets stuck in a rut at least some of the samples would be off-board.I guess this is kind of a compromise between the original idea of having Mars 2020 fill up a canister with the samples and the idea of leaving a trail of cores.
Hundreds of scientists and Mars-exploration enthusiasts will convene in a hotel ballroom just north of Los Angeles later this week to present, discuss and deliberate the future landing site for NASA’s next Red Planet rover – Mars 2020. The three-day workshop is the fourth and final in a series designed to ensure NASA receives the broadest range of data and opinion from the scientific community before the agency chooses where to send the new rover.
By the workshop’s conclusion, the combined tallies suggested a consensus preference for a hybrid approach—one in which the Mars 2020 rover would visit and explore the dry lakebeds and deltas of Jezero Crater as well as the ancient rocks of the Midway site, which is only some 28 kilometers away. That’s not too far, as the crow flies, but still a potentially tall order for a robotic rover trundling across uneven alien terrain. Making the trek would be a stretch goal for the rover, as the traverse could easily require time in excess of its 2.35-year primary mission. Also, even though this two-for-one approach is scientifically compelling, it is not set in stone: The decision of where exactly to send Mars 2020 rests with NASA’s top scientist, Thomas Zurbuchen, who is expected to review the workshop’s findings and announce his choice by year’s end. His review will then go up the NASA leadership chain for a final announcement.
In the early hours of Sept. 7, NASA broke a world record.Less than 2 minutes after the launch of a 58-foot-tall (17.7-meter) Black Brant IX sounding rocket, a payload separated and began its dive back through Earth's atmosphere. When onboard sensors determined the payload had reached the appropriate height and Mach number (38 kilometers altitude, Mach 1.8 ), the payload deployed a parachute. Within four-tenths of a second, the 180-pound parachute billowed out from being a solid cylinder to being fully inflated.It was the fastest inflation in the history of a parachute this size and created a peak load of almost 70,000 pounds of force.
American rocket engineers are being urged to push their next Mars mission to the limits of technological performance. Space scientists have told Nasa they want the agency to “dream big” to ensure their new robot rover, scheduled for launch in 2020, visits a maximum number of sites to increase chances of uncovering signs of ancient life on Mars.
“The community prefers a mega-mission,” said Bethany Ehlmann, a planetary scientist at the California Institute of Technology, quoted in Nature this month. “If we are going to do a sample return, it has to be a sample cache for the ages.”
Around 2026, Nasa plans to launch a follow-up mission that would land a rocket launcher and new robot craft, called Fetch Rover, on Mars. Fetch Rover will gather up the caches and deliver them back to the rocket, which will then blast the samples into orbit round Mars. There it will rendezvous with an orbiter to carry the samples back to Earth.“We will have the strictest quarantine conditions enforced when we collect and store those samples,” said Golombek. “It will be worth the effort and expense, however. This is going to be our best chance of finding out if life evolved independently on another world and that life here is not just a lucky accident.”
Scientists call for ‘mega-mission’ to find ancient life on MarsQuoteAmerican rocket engineers are being urged to push their next Mars mission to the limits of technological performance. Space scientists have told Nasa they want the agency to “dream big” to ensure their new robot rover, scheduled for launch in 2020, visits a maximum number of sites to increase chances of uncovering signs of ancient life on Mars.Quote “The community prefers a mega-mission,” said Bethany Ehlmann, a planetary scientist at the California Institute of Technology, quoted in Nature this month. “If we are going to do a sample return, it has to be a sample cache for the ages.”QuoteAround 2026, Nasa plans to launch a follow-up mission that would land a rocket launcher and new robot craft, called Fetch Rover, on Mars. Fetch Rover will gather up the caches and deliver them back to the rocket, which will then blast the samples into orbit round Mars. There it will rendezvous with an orbiter to carry the samples back to Earth.“We will have the strictest quarantine conditions enforced when we collect and store those samples,” said Golombek. “It will be worth the effort and expense, however. This is going to be our best chance of finding out if life evolved independently on another world and that life here is not just a lucky accident.”
Unless Bethany Ehlmann think that the US Congress is going to substantially increase the budget of your current Mars rover of about $2B. This is just wishful thinking.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 10/28/2018 07:56 pmUnless Bethany Ehlmann think that the US Congress is going to substantially increase the budget of your current Mars rover of about $2B. This is just wishful thinking.If you read the context of the original quote (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07064-y), it's clear Dr Ehlmann was commenting on the type and ambitiousness of the landing sites that got the most votes in the workshop, not arguing for additional missions or funding.