On the positive (but unexplored) side, here's a thought on how to deal with the generic case of sample return (not just Mars).Structure a CRS-like program which bids out "return from on orbit somewhere", where each mission needs to start, be on station for a duration, and return in certain conditions. Offer a number of overlapping "slots" for N providers to bid on, and two to fly.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/01/2018 07:38 pmOn the positive (but unexplored) side, here's a thought on how to deal with the generic case of sample return (not just Mars).Structure a CRS-like program which bids out "return from on orbit somewhere", where each mission needs to start, be on station for a duration, and return in certain conditions. Offer a number of overlapping "slots" for N providers to bid on, and two to fly.There are proposals for doing a number of lunar sample returns, and I could see this model working well there (nearby, multiple flights, etc.), especially if the samples are bulk samples gathered directly by an arm on the lander. At least one credible design for a lunar bulk sampler would cost less than $850 M without the launch (the New Frontiers proposed lander). With a bulk purchase, this would likely go down on a per flight basis.
With Mars, I'd believe this would be harder. First, there's a need for a highly capable rover with very sensitive instruments to go find the right samples scattered across a fairly large landscape. The scientific community rejected the concept of simply collecting bulk samples from the immediate landing site they are looking for very specific and usually rare geologic setting. Hence the need for a highly capable rover. The sampling mechanism and caching system are proving to be challenging to design. Also, intelligently selecting those samples makes this a science mission, and I'm not aware of private companies with the proven expertise to run complex science operations of this nature.
In addition, Mars presents some problems in terms of storing fuels on the surface because of the cold. One of the key breakthroughs that NASA believes would enable a Mars sample return next decade is a fuel type that can withstand that cold.
As I said, I think the technical capabilities of private companies to mount their own missions outside of NASA's R&D structures, have matured to the point where lunar missions are credible. Mars appears to be too far away and too technically challenging at this point for it not be an R&D exercise and not to require extensive interaction with a science team. The same could probably be said of comets at this point.
Probably the biggest challenge to this idea is that so far no government has been willing to fund a series of missions that could be built on an assembly line where the strengths of the private sector shine best. With one-off missions, they are R&D efforts and NASA wants to work intensely with the industrial or agency labs doing the design and testing. If you are committed to doing ten flights, one or two failures are acceptable. If you are doing this once and Congress is watching, you want that one time to succeed.
Another challenge is that planetary missions including sample return missions are science driven and exploratory. For Bennu, as an example, there will be over a year of studying the asteroid before taking a sample. Would a CRS-like approach where the capabilities, design, and operation involve working with large and complex science teams?
All that said, I'd like to see the CRS approach tried, and I hope it is with the moon.
~1kg, ~220W, ~60cm coaxial rotor, ~3 minutes a day flight to ~100m altitude and several hundred meters traverse on integral solar.It is unclear if this will fly on the Mars 2020 rover.There are no further public releases after the video that I have found unfortunately. I contemplated mailing the PI, but diddn't go that far.The above is interesting because it is almost off-the-shelf, and at the weight it is can almost be worth it if you avoid a several hundred meter traverse once. (with 2020 rover class propulsion)
I have absolutely no idea what the SpaceX plan is supposed to be now that Red Dragon has been placed in the back burner following the cancellation of legs for the Crew Dragon. Would anyone like to propose a website or even a thread about the 2003/2005 NASA Mars Sample return, SpaceX current plan and the Chinese plan?
SpaceX's plan is right here: http://www.spacex.com/mars
Falcon 9H is an only rocket in next 5-10 years that will make possible to do Mars return sample.
Reading into one study regarding hybrid rocket propulsion for MSR here:http://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Boiron_AIAA_2013-3899.pdfA hybrid mentioned is paraffin wax and liquid oxygen. Apparently at the right ratios it can get slightly higher than 360 seconds for specific impulse, nearly on par with methalox (not exceeding, but able to match its middle range). It might even have a temperature tolerance able to handle at least the low if not middle latitudes of Mars.
Quote from: redliox on 01/01/2018 10:57 pmReading into one study regarding hybrid rocket propulsion for MSR here:http://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Boiron_AIAA_2013-3899.pdfA hybrid mentioned is paraffin wax and liquid oxygen. Apparently at the right ratios it can get slightly higher than 360 seconds for specific impulse, nearly on par with methalox (not exceeding, but able to match its middle range). It might even have a temperature tolerance able to handle at least the low if not middle latitudes of Mars.Having only one stage would greatly simplify things and eliminate a failure mode.
I wonder if any of the costs have changed. From the documentation below, just the lander portion is over 3 billion (covers everything accept return from Mars orbit).https://ia800300.us.archive.org/24/items/MarsSampleReturnLanderMissionConceptStudy/09_Mars-Sample-Return-Lander-Final.pdf
WASHINGTON — NASA doesn’t expect to make decisions on how it will carry out a Mars sample return effort until late next year despite recent discoveries that have offered additional evidence that the planet was once, and may still be, habitable.
“Certainly, Mars sample return is something that we are committed to as an agency,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine in a June 6 briefing with reporters. “That’s a civilization-level changing capability, and we want to do it.”
He noted that NASA’s 2019 budget proposal included $50 million to support planning for Mars sample return efforts. That funding line remained flat for later years in the budget proposal, pending development of a more detailed mission architecture.“We’re going to give a lot more clarity about what that means exactly in the next budget cycle,” he said. However, he didn’t expect those plans to fall into place until late next year. “The first time we’re really going to start tying up things, really making decisions because we have parallel joint investigations going on in Europe as well, is late ’19. It’s not a decision this week or next week or next month.”
NASA is sounding fairly committed to sample return at this point. I think that one consideration is that the Entry-Descent-Landing expertise tends to decay over time. If they launch Sample Return in 2026 that will be 6 years after the 2020 Rover. I worry that if they go later than that they might find that they have lost some of their capability to land successfully. We've had a Mars landing about every 5 years since the mid-90s, and a 2026 landing would maintain that tempo. The other thing I was thinking about is that it would be a good idea to put a few scientific instruments on the fetch rover. This rover will have to be capable of high speed driving. It needs to make 100m per day to be able to collect the samples in the time available. Once it has finished with the sample fetch mission, it could potentially last another 10 years and drive long distances across the surface. One interesting thing is that the Jezero Crater and NE Syrtis landing sites are within driving range of each other. Once the fetch mission is done it would be entirely possible for the fetch rover to drive to the site that wasn't selected. And it doesn't need a lot of instruments to do a useful mission. An APXS could provide bulk chemistry. An IR spectrometer could identify minerals, and a microscopic imager could study mineral grains and layers. Add a brush, and you have a simple science package that won't cost the Earth or weigh more than a few kilos. A more ambitious plan would add a sample collecting drill and containers to the fetch rover. Why collect more samples? Firstly, the initial sample return attempt might not make it. If the fetch rover could collect samples, then there would be a spare batch of samples on the Martian surface. Even if the samples make it back to Earth, the scientists who study them are likely to want a second batch. Much will be learned from the first set of samples. The second sample collection effort could then target the most interesting areas. @Star One ... It will indeed be ironic if the Martians turn out to be from the same tree of life as Earthlings. There are two major families of 'bacteria', the Prokaryotes and the Archaea. Archaea tend to be found in extreme environments on Earth, so maybe they originally came from somewhere else.
It will indeed be ironic if the Martians turn out to be from the same tree of life as Earthlings. There are two major families of 'bacteria', the Prokaryotes and the Archaea. Archaea tend to be found in extreme environments on Earth, so maybe they originally came from somewhere else.