Possible cost-reduction possibilities for the NASA portions of MSR

[deadman1204]

multiple winners? There is only 1 cache to return.

There are two sets of samples, one set of 10 on the ground at the Three Forks Depot and one set still in Perseverance rover. According to the industry day slides, the Perseverance samples are of greater scientific value (perhaps because Perseverance has taken additional samples after the Three Forks Depot was created), but the Three Forks samples were selected so that either set would be scientifically valuable. The RASMSR program appears to be OK with returning either all 10 of the Three Forks samples or the 10 best Perseverance samples. So multiple winners each targeting a different set of samples seems viable.

Also, what makes it commercial? Slapping the word on? There is no such thing as commercial mars anything. Its 100% government funded. By the metrics people use to call things commercial, apollo was too. We just didn't use that word.

Fixed-price contracts, persistent competition, contractors care about more than one contract because they own intellectual property and other assets.

fixed price doesn't work for this. What you get is just failure.
Fixed price is great for things that are understood, like building a rocket, putting a geo satellite in orbit ext. MSR is brand new, and as we all know, the more you dig into it the more new problems there are to solve.

Fixed price will just mean risk goes through the roof because funds are limited and they cannot examine the entire risk area. They just gotta hope and pray. I Assume you also assume going to a company that has ZERO Experience with interplanetary flight, landing, mars operations, and all sorts of things. That only increases the risk exponentially.
At some point you get what you pay for. Doing highly risky totally unknown things on the cheap means your probably gonna screw up.

[dglow]

multiple winners? There is only 1 cache to return.

There are two sets of samples, one set of 10 on the ground at the Three Forks Depot and one set still in Perseverance rover. According to the industry day slides, the Perseverance samples are of greater scientific value (perhaps because Perseverance has taken additional samples after the Three Forks Depot was created), but the Three Forks samples were selected so that either set would be scientifically valuable. The RASMSR program appears to be OK with returning either all 10 of the Three Forks samples or the 10 best Perseverance samples. So multiple winners each targeting a different set of samples seems viable.

Also, what makes it commercial? Slapping the word on? There is no such thing as commercial mars anything. Its 100% government funded. By the metrics people use to call things commercial, apollo was too. We just didn't use that word.

Fixed-price contracts, persistent competition, contractors care about more than one contract because they own intellectual property and other assets.

fixed price doesn't work for this. What you get is just failure.
Fixed price is great for things that are understood, like building a rocket, putting a geo satellite in orbit ext. MSR is brand new, and as we all know, the more you dig into it the more new problems there are to solve.

Fixed price will just mean risk goes through the roof because funds are limited and they cannot examine the entire risk area. They just gotta hope and pray. I Assume you also assume going to a company that has ZERO Experience with interplanetary flight, landing, mars operations, and all sorts of things. That only increases the risk exponentially.
At some point you get what you pay for. Doing highly risky totally unknown things on the cheap means your probably gonna screw up.

Sincere question: do you think the baby can be split? Fixed price for understood items like, say, a skycrane lander, and cost plus for more novel bits such as, say, the MAV?

[DeimosDream]

NASA has now added Rocket Lab to list of companies being paid to flesh out their proposals for MSR.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46744.msg2628619#msg2628619

Selection will come down to price, how realistic proposal is ie company can deliver on time and budget, time.

If NASA are relying on Perseverance to deliver samples to MAV then time isn't on their side. We don't know how long Perseverance will last. If it dies before a mission is launched then they will have to add extra lander with rovers or helicopters to retrieve samples.

It sounds like only two, maybe three of the proposals (Rocket Lab, Lockheed Martin, maybe Blue Origin) are proposing to take over the entire MSR mission as prime contractors. To summarize my understanding of their abstracts:
> Rocket Lab - We did Capstone and more. We can miniaturize and come in under budget.
> Lockheed - We did the InSight Mars Lander. You can trust us to get the samples back.

Maybe
> Blue Origin - Unclear if they are offering to brute force a full solution with their New Glenn rocket, are proposing to make an SRL/MAV based on their Artemis HLS, or are just selling New Glenn by submitting a new paper baseline updated to use New Glenn mass/volume payload constraints.

The other five (SpaceX, Quantum L3Harris, Northorp, and Whittinghill) all seem to be selling how their hardware could be incorporated into NASA's existing reference mission.
> Quantum - Have you considered taking a detour to Lunar orbit and transferring the sample there into the Earth Entry System? Maybe less mass to return from Mars, and a lower energy less risky Earth reentry.
> L3Haris - Why don't you let us design a more optimal MAV which would allow a smaller sky-crane sized SRL?
> Northorp - You should really use our solid motors to make a two-stage MAV.
> Whittinghill Aerospace - You should really use our hybrid motor to make a single-stage MAV.
> SpaceX - Hello, Mars-bound Starship here! How do the equations change if we give you a Starship sized launch budget? Maybe Starship could even used as the SRL.


In theory we could have SpaceX provide the Earth Launch Vehicle and Sample Return Lander, and then somebody else takes over for the Mars Assent Vehicle, Earth Return Orbiter, and EES.

(Edit: on a second reading I'm less certain about the scope of Blue's study/proposal)

[deadman1204]

multiple winners? There is only 1 cache to return.

There are two sets of samples, one set of 10 on the ground at the Three Forks Depot and one set still in Perseverance rover. According to the industry day slides, the Perseverance samples are of greater scientific value (perhaps because Perseverance has taken additional samples after the Three Forks Depot was created), but the Three Forks samples were selected so that either set would be scientifically valuable. The RASMSR program appears to be OK with returning either all 10 of the Three Forks samples or the 10 best Perseverance samples. So multiple winners each targeting a different set of samples seems viable.

Also, what makes it commercial? Slapping the word on? There is no such thing as commercial mars anything. Its 100% government funded. By the metrics people use to call things commercial, apollo was too. We just didn't use that word.

Fixed-price contracts, persistent competition, contractors care about more than one contract because they own intellectual property and other assets.

fixed price doesn't work for this. What you get is just failure.
Fixed price is great for things that are understood, like building a rocket, putting a geo satellite in orbit ext. MSR is brand new, and as we all know, the more you dig into it the more new problems there are to solve.

Fixed price will just mean risk goes through the roof because funds are limited and they cannot examine the entire risk area. They just gotta hope and pray. I Assume you also assume going to a company that has ZERO Experience with interplanetary flight, landing, mars operations, and all sorts of things. That only increases the risk exponentially.
At some point you get what you pay for. Doing highly risky totally unknown things on the cheap means your probably gonna screw up.

Sincere question: do you think the baby can be split? Fixed price for understood items like, say, a skycrane lander, and cost plus for more novel bits such as, say, the MAV?

Yes I do. A skycrane is possible on fixed price is possible - but only by jpl. They are the only ones with the expertise (well china too since the stole all the data). So its hard I suppose. Asking anyone else to do a skycrane turns it into green field development because no company will have the knowledge to do it without alot of R&D.

When I think of cost plus for msr, I'm imagining hand waving that the gist of it will have to be cost plus since there is so much r&d and new development required. Certain aspects probably can be fixed price like a skycrane if they can be reused. 

[TheRadicalModerate]

I don't know if "sterilization of the samples" means sterilizing the samples themselves, which would presumably reduce the science value, or just sterilizing the exterior of some container.

The latter.

You're probably right, but I don't see a way to rule out the possibility that RL is proposing their own different version of the ERO that unlike ESA's ERO does sterilize the samples.

My understanding is that replacing ERO is diplomatically unpleasant.

The CCRS (which is carried on the ERO and does the sterilization) is being developed by Glenn Research Center, IIRC.

You absolutely can replace this system if you're willing to miff ESA.  If you could find a way for the MAV to return the EEV straight to Earth transfer orbit, that would be a huge simplification.  But you probably need to land a Starship to do that, and you can't make it comply with Cat IV rules.

[deltaV]

Fixed price is great for things that are understood, like building a rocket, putting a geo satellite in orbit ext. MSR is brand new, and as we all know, the more you dig into it the more new problems there are to solve.

Fixed price will just mean risk goes through the roof because funds are limited and they cannot examine the entire risk area. They just gotta hope and pray.

Private companies innovating, taking calculated risks, and hoping and praying that their risks pay off is one of the engines that makes capitalism kick communism's butt. This is often stressful and dramatic and lots of companies go bankrupt in the process but overall capitalism gets superior results.

Noteworthy example of space innovations using private money and/or fixed-price contracts include first propulsive landing orbital rocket stage reuse (Falcon), first orbital rocket that saves money via reuse (Falcon), first fully reusable rocket (Starship), first American rocket with more than ~6 engines on a stage (Falcon Heavy, Starship), first orbital rocket with 300 consecutive successes (Falcon?), first methane engine produced at scale (Raptor), first staged-combustion engine produced at scale (Raptor), first full-flow staged-combustion engine (Raptor), first American capsule that lands on land (Starliner), first liquid oxygen engine fired farther from the Earth than a GEO graveyard orbit (IM-1?), first liquid oxygen engine used to land somewhere other than Earth (IM-1?), first American moon landing since Apollo (IM-1), largest payload lunar lander ever (Starship), first orbital propellant transfer below 150 Kelvin (Starship?), first liquid hydrogen orbital propellant transfer (Blue Origin soon?), first suborbital spaceflight using fully-reusable vehicle(s) (the winner depends on the exact definition), and largest space station deorbit ever (SpaceX ISS deorbiter).

Outside of spaceflight there are problems that are much harder than MSR that have been done primarily using private money. The biggest example is probably between 1970 and 2020 CPUs had ~1000-fold reduction in transistor linear dimension, ~1-million-fold increase in number of transistors per chip, and ~1000-fold increase in clock speeds. This increase in CPU performance has required countless multi-billion-dollar bets on fabs doing things that have never been done before. Self-driving cars that can handle the complexity of regular roads is another much harder problem than MSR that private companies are betting billions of dollars on. Electric and hybrid cars are another example. Airliners have been developed using mostly private money, including many improvements in fuel efficiency using exotic new techniques such as single-crystal turbine blades.

MSR is a bit new, but not very - unlike several of the things listed above no reasonable person would claim MSR is impossible or infeasible. Old space seems to have forgotten how to innovate using private money but other companies have not and would bid for fixed-price MSR. If SpaceX can find a way to get Starship through planetary protection requirements they'll surely bid. Rocket Lab said in their RASMSR abstract that they'd do a $2B fixed-price bid; that number is likely to change when they learn the requirements and think more carefully but they'll presumably bid. Blue Origin would probably bid but I'm less certain about that. I know Boeing has decided not to innovate using fixed-price contracts any more. I don't know if other old space companies such as Lockheed and Northrup Grumman would bid but if they don't that's OK.

NASA has already tried traditional contracting methods for MSR and it failed. Why not give fixed-price persistent-competition contractor-owned-assets contracting a try? If no one makes a reasonable bid the loss to NASA will be relatively small and we'll learn something.

[TheRadicalModerate]

NASA has already tried traditional contracting methods for MSR and it failed. Why not give fixed-price persistent-competition contractor-owned-assets contracting a try? If no one makes a reasonable bid the loss to NASA will be relatively small and we'll learn something.

MSR has massive technological problems—which is exactly when cost+ is a good idea. Nobody’s going to bid an FFP contract for MSR. And if someone is foolish enough to bid it, they’ll probably have schedule problems. That violates the constraints that Nelson has placed on the project.

[StraumliBlight]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1841178530148991179

NASA Adv Council (NAC) mtg starts with Bill Nelson saying "it's looking very promising" that the results of new proposals they solicited for Mars Sample Return will result in a way that is "much cheaper" and we "can do it a lot quicker" than earlier proposal.

[TrevorMonty]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1841178530148991179

NASA Adv Council (NAC) mtg starts with Bill Nelson saying "it's looking very promising" that the results of new proposals they solicited for Mars Sample Return will result in a way that is "much cheaper" and we "can do it a lot quicker" than earlier proposal.

Of proposals (small summary) made public only RL has stated time (2028 launch) and price <$2B. Think it should've been higher as this is a project that could easily blow its budget.

Don't know SpaceX price but doubt its any cheaper. 

[deltaV]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1841178530148991179

NASA Adv Council (NAC) mtg starts with Bill Nelson saying "it's looking very promising" that the results of new proposals they solicited for Mars Sample Return will result in a way that is "much cheaper" and we "can do it a lot quicker" than earlier proposal.

This is excellent news because it suggests that NASA will give commercial-style contracting of MSR a try. Folks in SMD may have concluded from the CLPS failures that commercial-style contracting is a bad idea, but Bill Nelson is NASA administrator and outranks them.

[TheRadicalModerate]

This is excellent news because it suggests that NASA will give commercial-style contracting of MSR a try. Folks in SMD may have concluded from the CLPS failures that commercial-style contracting is a bad idea, but Bill Nelson is NASA administrator and outranks them.

It suggests nothing of the kind. It might suggest that somebody’s going to get a contract, but NASA, likely with JPL doing the project management, will still be responsible.

The commercial model used by CCP, HLS, CLPS, etc. offers a service, not a vehicle or component. The MSR mission has to integrate all of the components in the project and operate them. A commercial model is totally inappropriate.

Not commercial, not FFP, not a service.

[deadman1204]

This is excellent news because it suggests that NASA will give commercial-style contracting of MSR a try. Folks in SMD may have concluded from the CLPS failures that commercial-style contracting is a bad idea, but Bill Nelson is NASA administrator and outranks them.

It suggests nothing of the kind. It might suggest that somebody’s going to get a contract, but NASA, likely with JPL doing the project management, will still be responsible.

The commercial model used by CCP, HLS, CLPS, etc. offers a service, not a vehicle or component. The MSR mission has to integrate all of the components in the project and operate them. A commercial model is totally inappropriate.

Not commercial, not FFP, not a service.

This very much. A "commercial' style thing would be guaranteed failure. Look at all our commercial success with clips so far, and the moon is so much easier than mars would be. This isn't a "shots on goal" situation where we send 20 companies and hope one succeeds.

[deltaV]

MSR has massive technological problems—which is exactly when cost+ is a good idea.

MSR isn't easy but there aren't any nearly-impossible problems to solve. It just requires a few billion dollars of quality engineering. We know success at MSR is possible, unlike e.g. economical fusion power.

Nobody’s going to bid an FFP contract for MSR.

Rocket Lab says otherwise and has the power to make it so (if NASA makes an RFP of course). SpaceX is a fan of fixed-price, Mars, and doing difficult things without the security of a cost-plus contract so they'd probably bid. Blue Origin is less clear. Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup Grumman likely won't bid since they don't like risky fixed-price contracts but that's OK.

NASA could also let the contractor choose between fixed-price or cost-plus with NASA naturally being a lot more skeptical about cost estimates for cost plus. This seems to have worked OK for the ISS deorbit vehicle.

And if someone is foolish enough to bid it, they’ll probably have schedule problems. That violates the constraints that Nelson has placed on the project.

Having two redundant providers helps some with schedule, e.g. SpaceX was late for commercial crew but a lot less late than Boeing was. But some schedule problems are almost inevitable regardless of the contracting scheme. The choice we have is whether schedule overruns also bust NASA's budget.

This is excellent news because it suggests that NASA will give commercial-style contracting of MSR a try.

It suggests nothing of the kind. It might suggest that somebody’s going to get a contract, but NASA, likely with JPL doing the project management, will still be responsible.

The contractors should be responsible, just like Commercial Crew.

The commercial model used by CCP, HLS, CLPS, etc. offers a service, not a vehicle or component. The MSR mission has to integrate all of the components in the project and operate them. A commercial model is totally inappropriate.

Not commercial, not FFP, not a service.

NASA just needs the sample tubes it already owns moved from Mars to Earth. That’s a transportation service. Commercial crew and commercial cargo are also transportation services. There's only one customer right now for MSR but that doesn't keep it from being a service.

MSR does have a little integration with the sample tubes and Perseverance rover and possibly NASA's Deep Space Network and ESA's Earth Return hardware, but that doesn't stop it from being a fixed-price service. Commercial crew and commercial cargo had to integrate with ISS after all.

A "commercial' style thing would be guaranteed failure. Look at all our commercial success with clips so far, and the moon is so much easier than mars would be. This isn't a "shots on goal" situation where we send 20 companies and hope one succeeds.

Commercial crew is a better comparison than CLPS for two reasons. First, Rocket Lab's $2B figure suggests MSR is comparable in difficulty to commercial crew, whereas as you pointed out CLPS is a much easier task with a much smaller budget. Second Commercial Crew has test flights like I’m proposing for MSR whereas CLPS did not.

If NASA wants more “shots on goal” they could split the Perseverance samples into 2-3 sets of 15 or 10 and have 3-4 contractors, 2-3 retrieving Perseverance samples and 1 retrieving Three Forks Depot samples. Most likely most of the contractors that fail will do so before a successful test flight and hence won’t damage their samples. NASA can therefore exercise the option to have a successful contractor also retrieve the failed contractor’s samples. So NASA would eventually get most of the samples back. This might give Rocket Lab, Blue Origin and SpaceX all a chance.

[thespacecow]

It's totally ridiculous to claim only cost+ can do MSR. Fact is, MSR is no harder than HLS, given MSR is estimated to be $10B, while NASA's estimate for Altair is $12B. And we have not one but two companies building HLS under fixed cost service contract.

[TrevorMonty]

Whoever if anybody wins MSR contract will still need lot help from NASA especially on planetary protection ie sterializing sample containers.

Big win from for NASA will be a commercially available Mars Descent(lander), Mars Ascent, Earth Return vehicles. Any of which could be used for future missions at fixed price.

[Athelstane]

It's totally ridiculous to claim only cost+ can do MSR. Fact is, MSR is no harder than HLS, given MSR is estimated to be $10B, while NASA's estimate for Altair is $12B. And we have not one but two companies building HLS under fixed cost service contract.

If you actually believe that NASA could execute an Altair lander today for $12 billion, I have a few prime bridges in New York harbor to sell you.

[Spiceman]

It's totally ridiculous to claim only cost+ can do MSR. Fact is, MSR is no harder than HLS, given MSR is estimated to be $10B, while NASA's estimate for Altair is $12B. And we have not one but two companies building HLS under fixed cost service contract.

If you actually believe that NASA could execute an Altair lander today for $12 billion, I have a few prime bridges in New York harbor to sell you.

LMAO, you nailed it Athelstane.

[vjkane]

Big win from for NASA will be a commercially available Mars Descent(lander), Mars Ascent, Earth Return vehicles. Any of which could be used for future missions at fixed price.

What future missions? Every space agency's planetary missions are scheduled out years in advance. No one is budgeting a second sample return. No commercial market.

And what would collect the samples? US and European scientists ruled out simple grab and return missions, what 10-15 years ago? So you'd need to do another Perseverance style sample collection. I don't think anyone would want to do that until they see what the Perseverance samples can tell us. Perseverance was sent to the one place on Mars (that met engineering constraints) that the scientific community believed was the best to sample. Do another mission mission from the second best without seeing what samples from the best can tell you?

(I know that the Chinese mission is a grab and return, which is a good strategy if you want to study a broad region (as their lunar samples are doing). However, the US/European strategy is to look for carefully curated samples from highly local environments. Look at how carefully the Perseverance team has been in collecting samples of very local conditions.

The Chinese/broad region approach is valid, but the US/European science communities decided long ago that that would not answer the key questions about potential life/habitable sites on Mars. They ruled out a grab and return as not being enough science for the cost.)

[Spiceman]

Big win from for NASA will be a commercially available Mars Descent(lander), Mars Ascent, Earth Return vehicles. Any of which could be used for future missions at fixed price.

What future missions? Every space agency's planetary missions are scheduled out years in advance. No one is budgeting a second sample return. No commercial market.

And what would collect the samples? US and European scientists ruled out simple grab and return missions, what 10-15 years ago? So you'd need to do another Perseverance style sample collection. I don't think anyone would want to do that until they see what the Perseverance samples can tell us. Perseverance was sent to the one place on Mars (that met engineering constraints) that the scientific community believed was the best to sample. Do another mission mission from the second best without seeing what samples from the best can tell you?

(I know that the Chinese mission is a grab and return, which is a good strategy if you want to study a broad region (as their lunar samples are doing). However, the US/European strategy is to look for carefully curated samples from highly local environments. Look at how carefully the Perseverance team has been in collecting samples of very local conditions.

The Chinese/broad region approach is valid, but the US/European science communities decided long ago that that would not answer the key questions about potential life/habitable sites on Mars. They ruled out a grab and return as not being enough science for the cost.)

Very good post. Ah sure it will hurt a little at the *pride* level, if the chinese gets Mars samples first. Then again, if NASA / ESA science strategy is more interesting, maybe it will be worth being second. This is no Apollo Cold War D*ck Measuring contest.

[Spiceman]

There is no such thing as commercial mars anything. Its 100% government funded.

Wrong, it's not 100% government funded. For one thing, SpaceX self funded Red Dragon and early Raptor/Starship R&D.

And Red Dragon landed on -- oh wait, it went nowhere beyond powerpoint.