Rocket Lab Mars Sample Return Mission Proposal

[TrevorMonty]

Am I reading this right? They now want to do Mars Sample Return for $2B in 2028?

https://twitter.com/mottbox_/status/1840279910578897055?s=46&t=eQrUtTJk6IAt4GyTzH7J2w

They've demonstrated accurate reentry with Varda capsule. I'm assuming will partner with Varda for capsule. Yet to do inspace rendezvous and docking but, rendezvous is requirement for Victus Haze mission in 2025.
Propulsion landing GNC for MLV should come from Neutron, assume they will make it work.
Hazard avoid during land may require partnering with one of lunar lander companies.

Hypercurie uses stored propellant so most likely the ascent engine for MAV.

RL do have or are in process of build systems to do a lot of what they are proposing. Would be gamble by NASA but RL is building credibility. Choosing newbies SpaceX for COTS was even bigger gamble but it paid of big time for NASA. At time SpaceX had only one successful F1 and no inspace experience.

Pull off and RL would do for interplanetary missions what SpaceX has done for launch and crewed flight. 

[TrevorMonty]

RL have been selected by NASA to study (flesh out) their proposal to do a Mars Sample Return Mission.
At this stage thread is more to discussion how RL would do this mission.

Am I reading this right? They now want to do Mars Sample Return for $2B in 2028?

https://twitter.com/mottbox_/status/1840279910578897055?s=46&t=eQrUtTJk6IAt4GyTzH7J2w

Here is what they've said in proposal.

Richard French/Rocket Lab USA, Inc.
Rocket Lab Proposal for Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return

For the last five years, Rocket Lab has methodically implemented a strategy for affordable planetary science that is uniquely suited to deliver a low cost, rapid Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission. As a vertically integrated launch service provider, Rocket Lab has proven capabilities across all required launch vehicle disciplines including vehicle design, production, logistics, regulatory, and operations. Rocket Lab plans to return 30 samples (29 samples tubes and at least 1 witness tube) back to Earth to meet Decadal-class science objectives, assuming 30 samples are available on the Perseverance rover for retrieval. The MAV is sized for at least 20 kg payload to provide margin against this sample goal. To maintain high science integrity and to emphasize the importance of science to the mission, Rocket Lab has organized a Science Advisory Council (SAC) to support the rapid mission study and ultimately support execution. The SAC will advise on all science issues to the Rocket Lab MSR study team. Rocket Lab will reduce cost and schedule for MSR through a simplified mission, targeting a total to NASA of less than $2B. Cost and schedule are reduced by leveraging Rocket Lab's vertically integrated commercial investments in affordable planetary science. Rocket Lab will reduce cost and schedule risk by working to the shortest schedule possible. Rocket Lab will challenge the program to hit a 2028 launch window to reduce costs while reducing risk associated with Perseverance lifetime, resulting in return of samples no later than Sept 2033, with the potential for earlier return in Sept 2031. Rocket Lab will reduce cost for MSR by performing as a single management organization as a prime contractor and using commercial approaches operating under firm fixed price. The mission design is a twolaunch solution, sized to Rocket Lab's Neutron launch vehicle. Launched roughly 2 weeks apart, launch 1 sends the ERO to orbit Mars while launch 2 sends the MLV, inclusive of the MAV and a cruise stage, on a direct entry to Mars. Samples will be delivered to the MLV by Perseverance which will then be loaded into the MAV with a 7-dof sampling arm. After MAV ascent, the ERO rendezvous with the MAV for sterilization of the samples and transfer to the EES, followed by return to Earth. Rocket Lab has demonstrated the experience and technical capabilities aligned with MSR and has assembled a team with the experience and skills to not only conduct a study of low cost, rapid MSR but also to execute on the mission once awarded. Rocket Lab demonstrated a rapid engine development program and a high delta-V (3.2 km/sec) spacecraft on the NASA CAPSTONE mission in June 2022 that successfully executed multiple critical burns targeting Earth escape. Rocket Lab is performing as a prime contractor for the US DoD, demonstrating our ability to manage a large team of mission partners with Class C mission assurance. Rocket Lab demonstrated precision entry system targeting using in-house propulsion and GNC capabilities in February 2024 with a successful re-entry of a capsule at UTTR. Rocket Lab is completing integration of two Mars science orbiters with high delta-V (2.6 km/sec) and deep space capable communications and navigation capabilities for launch in 2024. Rocket Lab is actively disrupting planetary science with affordable approaches [3] to delivering Decadal-class planetary science with the first private mission to Venus in search for organics in the cloud layer -- while integrating key NASA technology. Rocket Lab is gaining experience with long life, high reliability spacecraft based on Class C mission assurance to meet challenging environmental requirements like MSR with the Globalstar Program. Rocket Lab's FSW will control a lunar lander to the surface of the moon, a critical enabling capability for the Mars Lander Vehicle. Rocket Lab will demonstrate RPO, an enabling technology for the MAV rendezvous and docking operation with the ERO.

This mission is complex and has lot of different pieces, here is breakdown of them.
1) Launch. Neutron and should be well and truly operational by 2028. 1500kg to Mars.
2) ERO (Earth Return Orbiter). Just completed Escapade orbiters tick off the orbiter side of things. Earth Return has been demonstrated by Varda mission, may need Varda for capsule.
3) MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle) rendezvous, dock and transfer of sample to ERO. I don't see any issues with MAV, they've launched to space +50 times.  Recently won Victus Haze mission to fly in 2025 will demonstrate rendezvous. Docking and transfer may need a demo mission flown on Electron or Neutron.
4) MLV (Mars Landing Vehicle). This is difficult one but no reason can't use Phoenix lander's entry capsule/heatshield. Using flight prone capsule and parachute means only thing left to demonstrate is landing after release from aeroshell, something they could do using helicopter.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/phoenix-animation/

Phoenix mission had launch mass of 670kg and landed mass of 350kg.
MLV mass is big question. I'm going to assume MAV(Edit) of 250kg, DV is 4.2km/s, ISP 310 (HyperCurie ) which gives 62kgs dry mass to orbit, of which 20kg is samples.

With budget of $2B RL can afford to fly demonstration missions to retire areas of high risk.

[TrevorMonty]

CLPS is giving NASA low cost access to lunar surface, if RL can pull this off NASA would then have low cost commercial access to Mars. Follow up sample return missions should be lot less than $2B given all R&D has been done.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Phoenix mission had launch mass of 670kg and landed mass of 350kg.
MLV mass is big question. I'm going to assume 250kg, DV is 4.2km/s, ISP 310 (HyperCurie ) which gives 62kgs dry mass to orbit, of which 20kg is samples.

The problem with the existing MSR architecture isn't really the MLV¹ per se; it's the MAV, which has to fit on the MLV.  Without making a very large entry vehicle, the MAV is dimensionally too big to fit.  So that requires making a new entry vehicle, which necessarily attaches a lot of operational risk.

You might want to consider cross-posting this on the MSR Cost-Reduction thread.  Problems with landers are extensively covered there.  While I'm excited to see Rocket Lab playing in this space, the technical challenges are daunting.

The original sin with MSR is the mass of the Orbiting Sample, which affects the size of the MAV, which then affects the form factor of the MLV.  If RL has some magical MAV improvement (several of which comprise studies from other vendors), then I'm excited.  Otherwise, they've merely reduced things to a set of unsolved problems.

______________
¹PS:  Just because MSR is a highly acronym-dense project, the correct one is SRL, for "Sample Return Lander".

[TrevorMonty]

Phoenix mission had launch mass of 670kg and landed mass of 350kg.
MLV mass is big question. I'm going to assume 250kg, DV is 4.2km/s, ISP 310 (HyperCurie ) which gives 62kgs dry mass to orbit, of which 20kg is samples.

The problem with the existing MSR architecture isn't really the MLV per se; it's the MAV, which has to fit on the MLV.  Without making a very large entry vehicle, the MAV is dimensionally too big to fit.  So that requires making a new entry vehicle, which necessarily attaches a lot of operational risk.

You might want to consider cross-posting this on the MSR Cost-Reduction thread.  Problems with landers are extensively covered there.  While I'm excited to see Rocket Lab playing in this space, the technical challenges are daunting.

The original sin with MSR is the mass of the Orbiting Sample, which affects the size of the MAV, which then affects the form factor of the MLV.  If RL has some magical MAV improvement (several of which comprise studies from other vendors), then I'm excited.  Otherwise, they've merely reduced things to a set of unsolved problems.

Don't know what RL has planned but new entry vehicle/capsule design could open up a big money pit.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Don't know what RL has planned but new entry vehicle/capsule design could open up a big money pit.

Yup.  The problem for MSR is that there's a money pit no matter what.  There are 3 options:

1) Build a bigger lander, making the MAV simpler.
2) Build a smaller MAV, requiring various kinds of fanciness, of unknown cost.
3) Build the OS with zero mass margin, which is almost guaranteed to fail.

RL doesn't have a magic bullet for any of those problems. They're very good engineers, so maybe their version of a bigger lander is better/cheaper/faster than JPL's, but JPL has a lot more experience building them.  Or maybe their MAV is better in some way.  (There are several studies in the batch of NASA grants that are looking at better MAVs.)

The one thing that really isn't a problem is the launcher, because whatever the solution is, it can always be launched on a Falcon Heavy or a Starship, both of which have gobs of mass margin.  So it's nice to see a Neutron application, but there's nothing special there.

[deltaV]

Mars 2020 had launch mass 3,649 kg and landed mass 1700 kg, so landed mass is around 47% of launch mass (due to cruise stage and entry descent and landing hardware). Rocket Lab is planning to use Neutron for its lander. Neutron can send 1500 kg to Mars, so using Mars 2020's ratio of launch to landed mass RL's landed mass is probably around 700 kg. According to the RASMSR industry day slides part 2 slide 9 the NASA baseline sample retrieval lander has a landed mass of 2800 kg. How is RL's lander ~25% the mass of NASA's? Both are retrieving 30 samples.

I suspect RL's mass estimates looked overly optimistic to NASA, which led NASA to reject its proposal initially. Then I guess RL appealed or something and RL got an award 2.6 months later.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Rocket Lab is planning to use Neutron for its lander.

I don’t think Neutron is the lander, but if it is, then they have the same problem as Starship:  the lander fairing is the same as the launch fairing from Earth, and it can’t be made planetary protection Category IV compliant.

[Exastro]

Rocket Lab is planning to use Neutron for its lander.

I don’t think Neutron is the lander, but if it is, then they have the same problem as Starship:  the lander fairing is the same as the launch fairing from Earth, and it can’t be made planetary protection Category IV compliant.

Unlikely Neutron could survive entry at interplanetary speed without a lot of added shielding.

Edit to add: Would also presumably need aerosurfaces to generate and control negative lift to enable capture.

[deltaV]

Rocket Lab is planning to use Neutron for its lander.

I don’t think Neutron is the lander, but if it is, then they have the same problem as Starship:  the lander fairing is the same as the launch fairing from Earth, and it can’t be made planetary protection Category IV compliant.

Sorry, I meant RL is planning to use Neutron to launch its lander. I don't know what RL plans to use for its lander.

[the_big_boot]

Mars 2020 had launch mass 3,649 kg and landed mass 1700 kg, so landed mass is around 47% of launch mass (due to cruise stage and entry descent and landing hardware). Rocket Lab is planning to use Neutron for its lander. Neutron can send 1500 kg to Mars, so using Mars 2020's ratio of launch to landed mass RL's landed mass is probably around 700 kg. According to the RASMSR industry day slides part 2 slide 9 the NASA baseline sample retrieval lander has a landed mass of 2800 kg. How is RL's lander ~25% the mass of NASA's? Both are retrieving 30 samples.

I suspect RL's mass estimates looked overly optimistic to NASA, which led NASA to reject its proposal initially. Then I guess RL appealed or something and RL got an award 2.6 months later.

There’s the possibility that rocket lab is proposing a expendable neutron or a neutron “block 2” for this mission

[TrevorMonty]

Mars 2020 had launch mass 3,649 kg and landed mass 1700 kg, so landed mass is around 47% of launch mass (due to cruise stage and entry descent and landing hardware). Rocket Lab is planning to use Neutron for its lander. Neutron can send 1500 kg to Mars, so using Mars 2020's ratio of launch to landed mass RL's landed mass is probably around 700 kg. According to the RASMSR industry day slides part 2 slide 9 the NASA baseline sample retrieval lander has a landed mass of 2800 kg. How is RL's lander ~25% the mass of NASA's? Both are retrieving 30 samples.

I suspect RL's mass estimates looked overly optimistic to NASA, which led NASA to reject its proposal initially. Then I guess RL appealed or something and RL got an award 2.6 months later.

There’s the possibility that rocket lab is proposing a expendable neutron or a neutron “block 2” for this mission

The 1700kg lander was going to be carrying retrieval helicopters and 450kg 2 stage SRM ascent vehicle.
Besides mass MAV was also long due to use of SRM.
Some of the other proposals thing they can reduce MAV to 250kg while still using SRMs. RL would most likely use Hypercurie with ultra light composite tanks, so ISP would be up while dry mass down compared to SRMs. Think Capstone Photon bus minus solar panels, startrackers. Will need enough batteries to supply engine 4.2km/s of endurance but they may do battery hot swap to help shred mass on ascent.

As I stated in first post they may get away with using Phoniex landers entry capsule if lander is light enough.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Rocket Lab is planning to use Neutron for its lander.

I don’t think Neutron is the lander, but if it is, then they have the same problem as Starship:  the lander fairing is the same as the launch fairing from Earth, and it can’t be made planetary protection Category IV compliant.

Sorry, I meant RL is planning to use Neutron to launch its lander. I don't know what RL plans to use for its lander.

So it's no more than Yet Another Launcher proposal, with a Photon as a cruise stage instead of something custom.  That still leaves the EDL vehicle and the MAV, which are the hard parts.


OT:

I've been hoping that somebody will decide to bite off a Big Clean Lander:  Cat IVb-compliant, at least 6.5m in diameter, capable of landing 5t of payload.  Not only would this make MSR easy, it would serve as a bus for a flurry of cheap missions, which I believe will be needed to enable the decision to reclassify parts of the martian surface from Cat IV to Cat II, which is going to be needed before Starship landings can be licensed.

This is obviously well beyond the capabilities of Neutron, and it's unlikely that NASA will go down this path for the MSR, because it involves a lot more risk than the program can tolerate, and likely requires using a Starship or New Glenn as the launcher.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The 1700kg lander was going to be carrying retrieval helicopters and 450kg 2 stage SRM ascent vehicle.
Besides mass MAV was also long due to use of SRM.
Some of the other proposals thing they can reduce MAV to 250kg while still using SRMs. RL would most likely use Hypercurie with ultra light composite tanks, so ISP would be up while dry mass down compared to SRMs. Think Capstone Photon bus minus solar panels, startrackers. Will need enough batteries to supply engine 4.2km/s of endurance but they may do battery hot swap to help shred mass on ascent.

As I stated in first post they may get away with using Phoniex landers entry capsule if lander is light enough.

MAV mass isn't the problem.  Volume and length are.

ETA:  Well, mass is a problem too, but it's likely solvable.  But going to a wider lander is a huge pain, even if the payload weren't heavier.

[Trypto]

Hazard avoid during land may require partnering with one of lunar lander companies.

They're providing GNC and flight software (via ASI acquisition) to Firefly's Blue Ghost which is targeting for Q4.

[TrevorMonty]

Even if first mission fails RL should be able to do a follow up mission within couple years for lot less than $2B given lot of that price was for initial R&D. NASA would have decide if 2nd mission is worth it. I suspect any failure would be in MLV which means 1st mission would still have ERO/communications relay that could be used on a follow up mission.

When reviewing proposal also need to look at future benefits to NASA besides initial MSR. All the flight proven elements needed for MSR will be available for future missions, can be used for another MSR or individually eg lander, ERO for Lunar or Asteriod sample return missions.

[Comga]

On the plus side, a RL MAV with liquid propellant engines can reduce the length problem by being "squat" while reducing the mass through higher Isp.

They could also reduce the size and distribute risk by splitting the mission into two 15 sample returns.

On the negative side, the benefit of keeping this all "in house" does not, IMO, match the risk of relying on Neutron, "yet another proposed launch vehicle".  (reference ESCAPADE on New Glenn).
Falcon 9 lists 4020 kg to Mars (FH lists 16,800 kg!) and is fully operational, reliable, available and affordable.

RL's HyperCurie engine has 120 N of thrust.  Even if RL could cut the MAV mass to 120 kg, it would get 1 m/sec^2/engine, vs a Mars gravity of 3.72 m/sec^2.  Clustering a dozen or more  to mange the gravity loss for a practical mass seems ungainly, so they probably have to develop a larger engine.  This is well within RL's capability, but missions that rely on many "breakthroughs" have excessive risk. Now this is dependent on Archimedes, Neutron's second stage engine, AND this "MegaCurie".

[deltaV]

On the negative side, the benefit of keeping this all "in house" does not, IMO, match the risk of relying on Neutron, "yet another proposed launch vehicle".  (reference ESCAPADE on New Glenn).
Falcon 9 lists 4020 kg to Mars (FH lists 16,800 kg!) and is fully operational, reliable, available and affordable.

If NASA designs the contract properly a launch vehicle failure would be expensive for the contractor, not for NASA. NASA would lose only ~2 years of schedule slip and pay for supervising civil servants, which is annoying but not a big deal. So while I agree that Neutron appears to be a suboptimal choice NASA shouldn't worry about this.

[TrevorMonty]

MLV mass is issue, not LV. To keep development and build costs down they need to reduce mass of MLV and MAV. Even if RL had FH at their disposal would still be trying keep MLV+ transfer stage at  <1500kg.

I would hope Neutron is well and truly operational by 2028 but can still rely on F9R as backup.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241007484239/en/Rocket-Lab-Awarded-NASA-Study-Contract-to-Explore-Bringing-Rock-Samples-from-Mars-to-Earth-for-the-First-Time

Rocket Lab Awarded NASA Study Contract to Explore Bringing Rock Samples from Mars to Earth for the First Time
The study proposes using Rocket Lab’s vertically integrated technologies to retrieve samples from the Red Planet for the first time in history as part of NASA’s Mars Sample Return Program.

October 07, 2024 06:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
LONG BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Nasdaq: RKLB) (“Rocket Lab” or “the Company”), a global leader in launch services and space systems, today announced the Company has been selected by NASA to complete a study for retrieving rock samples from the Martian surface and bringing them to Earth for the first time. The mission would fulfill some of the highest priority solar system exploration goals for the science community – to revolutionize humanity’s understanding of Mars, potentially answer whether life ever existed on the Martian surface, and help prepare for the first human explorers to the Red Planet.

Retrieving samples from Mars is one of the most ambitious and scientifically important endeavors humanity has ever embarked upon. We’ve developed an innovative mission concept to make it happen affordably and on an accelerated schedule

NASA’s Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return solicits industry proposals to carry out rapid studies of mission designs and mission elements capable of delivering samples collected by the Mars Perseverance rover from the surface of Mars to Earth. The results of this study will inform a potential update to NASA’s Mars Sample Return Program and may result in future procurements with industry. Rocket Lab’s study will explore a simplified, end-to-end mission concept that would be delivered for a fraction of the current projected program cost and completed several years earlier than the current expected sample return date in 2040.

“Retrieving samples from Mars is one of the most ambitious and scientifically important endeavors humanity has ever embarked upon. We’ve developed an innovative mission concept to make it happen affordably and on an accelerated schedule,” said Rocket Lab founder and CEO, Sir Peter Beck. “Rocket Lab has been methodically implementing a strategy for cost-effective planetary science in recent years, making us uniquely suited to deliver a low cost, rapid Mars Sample Return. We’ve demonstrated this strategy by delivering a NASA mission to the Moon, enabling rendezvous and proximity operations in orbit, successfully re-entering a capsule from orbit to Earth, delivering two spacecraft to NASA for a Mars mission, and much more. We look forward to bringing our proven capabilities together to deliver a compelling, innovative mission solution that puts Mars rocks in the hands of scientists sooner.”

Rocket Lab’s proposed mission architecture will be revealed once the study is complete in the coming months.

[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.

[TheRadicalModerate]

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

I think those are probably post deployment motors.  Remember that there are two separate birds in Escapade, both of them deployed from the Photon Explorer, which uses either Curies or HyperCuries.  I'd guess the latter, but I don't know.

[trimeta]

From SpaceNews' article on the Mars Sample Return decision process:

The MSR-SR will evaluate all 12 studies, but need not recommend a specific one as the best path forward for MSR. “It doesn’t necessarily have to be one of the proposed architectures. It may be that we learn things from all of the architectures,” he said. “They take those things, pieces of them, and say this is what we think the agency ought to be doing going forward.”

The goal of the review is to provide that recommendation to agency leadership, including Administrator Bill Nelson, some time in December. “What we’re looking for is an architecture that gives us the highest likelihood of returning samples to Earth before 2040 and, if possible, for less than $11 billion,” Gramling said.

Which does go along with what I suggested earlier, that although Rocket Lab is proposing a complete, end-to-end solution, they may not be too upset if NASA decided to create separate bids for each component, and they subsequently win some but not all of those bids.

[edzieba]

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

I think those are probably post deployment motors.  Remember that there are two separate birds in Escapade, both of them deployed from the Photon Explorer, which uses either Curies or HyperCuries.  I'd guess the latter, but I don't know.

They are not 'deployed' from Photon, Photon forms the spacecraft bus for both Blue and Gold.
From Rocket Lab's Cristophe Mandy:

The main propulsion engine is the S400-12 Biprop Thruster from Arianespace, which uses a combination of monomethylhydrazine (MMH) and dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO). Mandy said they weighed a number of factors when it came to choosing which components to build and which to procure, like the engines.

“We looked at all the different options for engines that could get us [to Mars]. Rocket Lab has its own engines. We are more interested in mission success than anything else,” Mandy said. “There are these high heritage, very stable, long-duration mission engines that came out of other companies and we just picked one of those.”