Mars Sample Return discussion thread

[Minmus Taster]

Felt like this should be it's own thread (Tianwen 3 still sort of fits into the existing threads)

The part where they throw it in the air makes my heart skip a beat thinking about it.

[Rutabaga22]

6 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

The part where they throw it in the air makes my heart skip a beat thinking about it.

Yeah, I feel like they should angle it instead of throating it.

[Minmus Taster]

29 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Yeah, I feel like they should angle it instead of throating it.

I mean it sort of makes sense; you can't launch an ascent rocket so powerful directly on top of it's landing stage, it's not an issue with Moon sample return because there are weaker thrusters involved but Mars requires a full-on rocket to ascend. It's not unheard of technology either, submarines shoot their missiles up with compressed air:

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

submarines shoot their missiles up with compressed air

The US ones.

The Soviet/Russian liquid-fuel ones just run the main engine inside the launch shaft.

The solid-fueled R-39 was being hanged in the shaft by the jettisonnable top cap and thrown out by a powder gas generator attached to the engine end.
Then it was having extended the inflatable nosecone.

Spoiler

***

The questionable moments of tha NASA PR designers' cartoon:

The rocket is placed perpendicularly to the lander axis.
The lander would be placed parallel to the launch vehicle axis.
So, on the Earth launch the returnable rocket will be lying perpendicularly to the 4 g acceleration.
To withstand this, it must have strong tank walls, strong. And heavy. Exactly what's required for a rocket to land and launch from Mars.
(A probable lifehack from NASA PR designers: "if the curvature of your bended rocket is equal to the curvature of the Martian ascent trajectory, it wil just curvedly slide to the orbit along its path.")
_{Feeling like speaking  Polish now.}

A lot of heavy mechanics. Almost no jettisonnable parts.
A tutorial how to make your spacecraft as heavy as possible. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by kerbiloid

[steve9728]

I just feel that this video should be missing (or omitting) some details. It's pretty crazy and doesn't leave any room for error that a container with such a valuable Martian sample: just "shot" into the returner's chamber.

Edited November 21, 2022 by steve9728

[SunlitZelkova]

The feedback they are interested in is related to the potential environmental effects.

I myself am not concerned, not necessarily because I think the likelihood of Mars life negatively affecting Earth is low, but because based on the current schedule Tianwen-3 is going to arrive on Earth up to a year prior to the NASA-ESA mission so whatever they do for Earth protection is pointless.

We are at the mercy of CNSA in that regard.

[Barzon]

Forgot to post when it happened, but on the 11th and 12th of this month, the MEPAG - Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group, held meetings of which I attended the 2nd day virtually. Amongst other things, there was an update on Mars Sample Return, stating that they had successfully performed test firings of the MAV 1st and 2nd stages, as well as the MAV PDR, both in the week before this meeting. It was also restated that there is a flight demo of the MAV, currently planned for next year out of Wallops. 
Slides: 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

This is a thread for this.

Requesting merge @Gargamel @Vanamonde

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads merged. 

[Barzon]

17 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This is a thread for this.

Requesting merge @Gargamel @Vanamonde

ah, sorry

[steve9728]

Another thought from China about sample return:

 

Basically, it's similar to the Chang'e-5 Lunar sample return.

Edited April 23, 2023 by steve9728

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, steve9728 said:

Another thought from China about sample return:

 

Basically, it's similar to the Chang'e-5 Lunar sample return.

Certainly not thinking small.  Hope they make it!

[Exoscientist]

 A low cost commercial approach to Mars Sample Return:

Low cost commercial Mars Sample Return.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/07/low-cost-commercial-mars-sample-return.html
 

 NASA estimates Mars Sample Return might cost $10 billion. But by following the commercial space approach it can be done for a cost of a few hundred million dollars, including the launch cost of the Falcon Heavy.

 Key to the low cost, aside from that its done by commercial space rather than the usual governmental financing, is to use already existing in-space stages rather than developing all new rocket stages for the mission.

The key technical problem unsolved is how to land a large structure such as a manned habitat on Mars. Fully propulsive landing would require prohibitive amounts of propellant transported to Mars. On the other hand such large structures would not be slowed down enough by the curved aeroshells for the earlier landers used, nor by parachutes.

 The post discusses using hypersonic waveriders for the purpose.

 But it might be possible to do such landing by propulsive means after all. The post also discusses getting the needed fuel or oxidizer for the landing from the Mars atmosphere like an airbreathing craft on Earth.  

 One method discussed in the post has importance beyond that of accomplishing MSR. It turns out that aside from CO2, Mars atmosphere also contains small amounts of oxygen and carbon monoxide.  Getting these components from Mars atmosphere can be done by low energy methods such as filtration. This important because this means hydrogen and methane can be obtained by low energy means not requiring the high power electrolysis now envisioned for obtaining propellant on Mars.

  Bob Clark

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Exoscientist
Typo

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 A lost, commercial approach to Mars Sample Return:

Low cost commercial Mars Sample Return.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/07/low-cost-commercial-mars-sample-return.html
 

 NASA estimates Mars Sample Return might cost $10 billion. But by following the commercial space approach it can be done for a cost of a few hundred million dollars, including the launch cost of the Falcon Heavy.

 Key to the low cost, aside from that its done by commercial space rather than the usual governmental financing, is to use already existing in-space stages rather than developing all new rocket stages for the mission.

The key technical problem unsolved is how to land a large structure such as a manned habitat on Mars. Fully propulsive landing would require prohibitive amounts of propellant transported to Mars. On the other hand such large structures would not be slowed down enough by the curved aeroshells for the earlier landers used, nor by parachutes.

 The post discusses using hypersonic waveriders for the purpose.

 But it might be possible to do such landing by propulsive means after all. The post also discusses getting the needed fuel or oxidizer for the landing from the Mars atmosphere like an airbreathing craft on Earth.  

 One method discussed in the post has importance beyond that of accomplishing MSR. It turns out that aside from CO2, Mars atmosphere also contains small amounts of oxygen and carbon monoxide.  Getting these components from Mars atmosphere can be done by low energy methods such as filtration. This important because this means hydrogen and methane can be obtained by low energy means not requiring the high power electrolysis now envisioned for obtaining propellant on Mars.

  Bob Clark

 

I think things didn’t have to do with cost so much as experience. MSR was never going to be approved until enough rovers had traversed Mars.

So the opportunity for MSR earlier wasn’t lost because of poor funding decisions in the present, it was lost in the 1970s and 1980s when Mars rover proposals were shot down amid the nadir of NASA robotic spaceflight.

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-russians-are-roving-1970-jpl-plan.html?m=1

If this had been approved we would have seen Mars sample return in the 2000s, not end up possibly coming in second to China (not that who’s first necessarily matters that much).

[DAL59]

https://www.nasa.gov/nasatv/

MSR update is currently live

MSR possibly delayed to NET 2040- its possible humans might land on Mars before the sample returns!

[DAL59]

However, they have put out a call for lower cost, quicker alternative missions

[Spaceception]

SpaceX/Starship is the go-to option to talk about I think, but I don't think they'll make a proposal, at least on their own (though, that is probably what a lot of people thought before HLS, so what do I know).

Relativity/Impulse have a Mars landing mission on the horizon, and could form the backbone to a project to pursue a return mission, as Tom Mueller is leading Impulse, and has a lot of experience with methalox (that he's applying to Helios), while also having looked into ISRU for Starship. They might even pull in SpaceX for this reason - giving them real data on making methalox on the Martain surface.

Just based on having a slated Mars mission Blue Origin/RocketLab are another potential team, set to launch this summer (EscaPADE), but it's a pair of satellites, not a lander. So probably not.

NASA needs a firmer deadline for sample return, NET 2040 is too far, and runs the risk of eventual cancellation. When NASA makes their selections, they need a closer date, preferably in the early/mid 2030s, about a decade from now.

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

NASA needs a firmer deadline for sample return, NET 2040 is too far, and runs the risk of eventual cancellation. When NASA makes their selections, they need a closer date, preferably in the early/mid 2030s, about a decade from now.

Cancellation is probably not the only danger. In both the 2040 deadline and your proposed early/mid 2030s target, China will possibly end up returning the first samples ahead of the US, as their mission launches in 2031.

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

However, they have put out a call for lower cost, quicker alternative missions

Good on them for accepting the challenges instead of pushing through an expensive and drawn out proposal.

I feel like this kind of reflection wouldn’t have happened in the 1990s or 2000s.

[Minmus Taster]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

https://www.nasa.gov/nasatv/

MSR update is currently live

MSR possibly delayed to NET 2040- its possible humans might land on Mars before the sample returns!

They need to just cancel the project, or hand it over to private companies entirely. By 2040 we'll have humans on mars, not to mention Tianwen 3 getting samples back over ten years earlier. Billions of dollars have gone into this ridiculous project and the money is better spent on Artemis, not that it's much better 

[Spaceception]

18 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Cancellation is probably not the only danger. In both the 2040 deadline and your proposed early/mid 2030s target, China will possibly end up returning the first samples ahead of the US, as their mission launches in 2031.

Fair, but;

• That assumes China doesn't hit delays either, I'd say based on Mars experience alone, the US has a strong edge in pulling this mission off in comparison... if we leveraged it.
• In either case, the US isn't a stranger to getting spaceflight milestones taken out from under them, and (the threat or event of which) might be the thing to kick us in our pants to actually supply decent support with ESA, and push to do so without putting it at the expense of other major missions like Dragonfly.

[adsii1970]

38 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

In either case, the US isn't a stranger to getting spaceflight milestones taken out from under them, and (the threat or event of which) might be the thing to kick us in our pants to actually supply decent support with ESA, and push to do so without putting it at the expense of other major missions like Dragonfly.

It's a shame we have to have so many nations with the "we did this great thing first, nah, nah, boo boo!" mentality. I'd love to see the ESA, NASA, and others work together. I hate to be negative, but I doubt any nation will send a human expedition to Mars, let alone colonize Mars alone. It will have to be a collaborative effort. As a species, we can accomplish more collectively than we can as individual nations.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Fair, but;

• That assumes China doesn't hit delays either, I'd say based on Mars experience alone, the US has a strong edge in pulling this mission off in comparison... if we leveraged it.
• In either case, the US isn't a stranger to getting spaceflight milestones taken out from under them, and (the threat or event of which) might be the thing to kick us in our pants to actually supply decent support with ESA, and push to do so without putting it at the expense of other major missions like Dragonfly.

China has been pretty good at doing things on time, both in the field of crewed and robotic spaceflight. I would expect a delay to 2035 at most, similar to how Tianwen-1 got pushed from 2018 to 2020.

[kerbiloid]

Why at all need the rock samples on the Earth so much, like if they are made of diamonds.

A heavy laboratory in situ would probably study everything required to know about the difference between the Martian and the Earthian regular rocks.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Why at all need the rock samples on the Earth so much, like if they are made of diamonds.

A heavy laboratory in situ would probably study everything required to know about the difference between the Martian and the Earthian regular rocks.

It's much more about looking for life rather than geology. Or areology.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It's much more about looking for life rather than geology. Or areology.

Perhaps more the reason to do the experiments on Mars where contamination of the samples is far less likely.  I think he has a point. And it very much is about geology, or areology also