If one were to propose an alternative approach to MSR, there are multiple avenues to choose from:1) Keep everything the same, but remove unnecessary extra parts like the helicopters and pare down operations.2) same as #1 but instead of a really high cost conventional contract lander, compete the lander among newer providers, including the likes of Impulse, the various CPLS providers, etc. The ascent vehicle, the canister, the ESA portion, and the return capsule are all the same.3) but the lander provider also makes the ascent vehicle.4) the same but the lander provider does direct return to Earth, the only part being the same is the Earth reentry capsule. Not sure how much money there is to save here if ESA is already paying for the capture vehicle which wouldn’t be needed here. Probably cheaper if you include the ESA orbiter as part of the cost. You could do direct-ascent direct to Earth.5) the entire mission is done by the lander provider, including Earth return reentry.Options 1-3 seem reasonable to me.Option 5 is potentially problematic because of the crazy high reliability requirements for the Earth return capsule. They want a basically zero chance of contaminating earth with the Mars samples, so the capsule has to be as simple as possible but simultaneously with the most mission assurance done on it than anything else in the program. I think they’re shooting for not more than a one in a million chance of exposing the Earth to the Mars samples. So that part is going to have the least design freedom for an alternative provider, and it’s not clear they’ll be able to save any money on that part.
Here’s a basic overview of some possible approach, mostly leaning on possible commercial landers (CLPS) used for Artemis.Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/27/2023 03:31 pmIf one were to propose an alternative approach to MSR, there are multiple avenues to choose from:1) Keep everything the same, but remove unnecessary extra parts like the helicopters and pare down operations.2) same as #1 but instead of a really high cost conventional contract lander, compete the lander among newer providers, including the likes of Impulse, the various CPLS providers, etc. The ascent vehicle, the canister, the ESA portion, and the return capsule are all the same.3) but the lander provider also makes the ascent vehicle.4) the same but the lander provider does direct return to Earth, the only part being the same is the Earth reentry capsule. Not sure how much money there is to save here if ESA is already paying for the capture vehicle which wouldn’t be needed here. Probably cheaper if you include the ESA orbiter as part of the cost. You could do direct-ascent direct to Earth.5) the entire mission is done by the lander provider, including Earth return reentry.Options 1-3 seem reasonable to me.Option 5 is potentially problematic because of the crazy high reliability requirements for the Earth return capsule. They want a basically zero chance of contaminating earth with the Mars samples, so the capsule has to be as simple as possible but simultaneously with the most mission assurance done on it than anything else in the program. I think they’re shooting for not more than a one in a million chance of exposing the Earth to the Mars samples. So that part is going to have the least design freedom for an alternative provider, and it’s not clear they’ll be able to save any money on that part.
Lander carries core drill…drills down collects sample, loads sample into direct return rocket with OSIRIS-REx type return capsule…
Quote from: Jeff Lerner on 06/30/2023 02:06 amLander carries core drill…drills down collects sample, loads sample into direct return rocket with OSIRIS-REx type return capsule…I read a study that looked at direct return, and the extra delta-v doubled the mass of the rocket needed to get off Mars. That will double the mass of the lander needed. It would be worse than that because some of the hardware needed for Earth return and planetary protection stays in Mars orbit in the Earth Return Orbiter. In a direct return scenario that would have to go down to the surface.
Starship is going to Mars. The first few will not leave the planet again so one of them could carry a decent sized direct return MAV on a gantry that swings out of the cargo bay. Just have to get the samples up to be loaded and then launch straight off the gantry.Doable ??
Quote from: Don2 on 06/30/2023 02:29 amI read a study that looked at direct return, and the extra delta-v doubled the mass of the rocket needed to get off Mars. That will double the mass of the lander needed. It would be worse than that because some of the hardware needed for Earth return and planetary protection stays in Mars orbit in the Earth Return Orbiter. In a direct return scenario that would have to go down to the surface.Maybe mass just isn't a good proxy for cost tho. This is 2023, launch costs (at least internally) are just as low as what they were projected for RLVs like the X-33. We're in a different regime where maybe you can drastically reduce costs by making a trade for greater simplicity.
I read a study that looked at direct return, and the extra delta-v doubled the mass of the rocket needed to get off Mars. That will double the mass of the lander needed. It would be worse than that because some of the hardware needed for Earth return and planetary protection stays in Mars orbit in the Earth Return Orbiter. In a direct return scenario that would have to go down to the surface.
Why not combine the MSR program with the Starship program. A human will be on Mars between 10 and 15 years from now anyway.
Why not combine the MSR program with the Starship program. A human will be on Mars between 10 and 15 years from now anyway. Why such a rush all of the sudden to bring back ounces of dust and rocks when a human rated Starship could bring back hundreds of pounds?
